This is a long post, so I'm putting this up front; if you read nothing else I've said, read this: Not talking about this with him is the wrong response. You absolutely must talk to him about this. Clear communication is crucial to a healthy marriage, much less a good sexual relationship.

Now, from what you say, there are probably issues for both of you here. I can't talk too much about his motivations, because we haven't heard from him, only from you--but I'll make an effort from my perspective as a husband in a moment.

First, let's take a quick look at what you've said: you find sex with your husband tedious and dirty. "Dirty" is a problem--a significant one--because marital sex is anything but dirty. To live chastely within marriage is to have marital sex. Marital sex is a reflection of Christ's love for the Church, and the love within the Godhead. It's a sacramental act of unity and life. You absolutely must abandon this notion that sex with your husband is dirty, but it won't be easy. Labeling sex as "dirty" is an easy way we repel our sexual desire when embracing it is sinful (e.g., as teenagers and when we're engaged). Forget that label. Sex isn't dirty. Extramarital sex is sinful; sex within marriage is a gift from God to express love and intimacy with our entire selves (body and soul).

The tedium of sex may be tied to several different issues. I do want to ask about the frequency of your intercourse: from what you say, it sounds like you're having sex regularly (daily a few months ago, several times per week now). Does that mean that you are not practicing NFP and periodic abstinence? Are you instead trying to have children now, or are you using artificial contraceptives?

I ask because artificial contraceptives, aside from being sinful, are known to have detrimental side effects in your sex life. Condoms reduce sensation for both parties. Hormonal contraceptives reduce your sex drive and (based on studies in other primates) may reduce your natural desirability to your mate. If this is the situation, it could contribute to his disinterest and your boredom.

Are you experiencing painful intercourse? My wife struggled with intercourse for our first year of marriage because she had conditions called vaginismus and vestibulodynia, which caused the whole experience to be excruciating rather than pleasant. We made a joint, sincere effort using multiple methods to reduce those conditions and improve her experience for months before we saw any real progress. That can be another factor.

What is your general attitude toward sex? Have you ever found it remotely pleasurable? If not, have you spoken to your husband about your experience in the bedroom? Or are you treating sex like a solemn duty you must perform so that he feels fulfilled? The entire process of human marital sex is for both husband and wife to enjoy it. In a technical sense, neither one of you "must" enjoy it in order for the other to do so, but it is more enjoyable for both of you if you both enjoy it. If you have ever felt pleasure during intercourse, talk to your husband about that--ask him to pursue that before satisfying himself. Satisfying him sexually is easy; satisfying you sexually probably takes a little work, and that should be a worthwhile pursuit.

Now, on to him for a moment. My guess is that he loves you. If he was unchaste before dating you, then he didn't marry you just to have sex with you (because he didn't have to get married to have sex); from what you have said, he remained chaste while dating you and engaged to you, too. Which means he does love you, but he may not know quite what that means (or should mean). Again, talk to him about his actions, about how you feel, about how he feels. Talk to him about your marriage, about your future together.

On the pornography: it almost definitely predates your marriage and your relationship and is absolutely never your fault. That's on him. You didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to do it, and even if you had, he still shouldn't have done it. Never blame yourself for this. I know that's difficult to accept, but it's the truth. He, and only he, is responsible for his sins. If you're the coldest wife in the world who refuses sex for twenty years straight, watching pornography and masturbating would still be his sins.

The most important thing here is for both of you to come to a real, clear understanding of what married life within the Church is. You need to read about the Theology of the Body. Here is a short, relatively easy book on the subject. Here is the longer book behind that book. Here is a tome with the religious and philosophical underpinnings of it all. Here is a short video and here is a long one. Others will hopefully post other resources (podcasts, videos, books, etc.). This is critical. It sounds like you and your husband both are lacking important information about how marriage works in the Catholic Church.

The second most important thing is for you to improve your communication with your husband. Here is a box set of short books that can help with that (these significantly improved communication between my wife and I). I've also seen these at a local library.

Your husband needs to commit to improving your marriage as much as you do. You must talk to him as soon as possible. Don't put it off. He should know that something is wrong, especially if he's choosing pornography over you.

More details will enable us to help you more, but nothing will help as much as clear communication with your husband and a dedication to building the best marriage possible.

First of all, welcome back, brother. I am especially touched that your fiancée would even suggest to find a Catholic Church. (As an aside, you're not a convert; you're a revert since you're already baptized into the Church. I thought maybe you'd appreciate that factoid.)

​

>I am looking for information about your Church, whatever you think is important to know.

There is a lot to know and many here would recommend a million and one things to study, especially since it sounds like you enjoy a good intellectual pursuit. I'm not going to discount others' recommendations, but I do want to highlight one thing: learn more about Jesus first. Find out what He taught, who He is, what His disciples and closest friends said about Him, what the Old Testament said about Him, etc. To that end...

​

>I am looking for recommendations for a Catholic-approved version of the Bible, geared towards someone who appreciates philosophy and prefers something close to the original translations, or the most accepted by the Church.

First thing to note, all Catholic Bibles have 72 books. Protestants have 66. If you can't get a hold of a Catholic Bible, a Protestant one will do for now until you do get around to buying a Catholic one. Now, as for Catholic Bibles, if you speak/read Latin you can't go wrong with the Vulgate Bible. It's a Bible that was translated by St. Jerome who was fluent in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; he had the original manuscripts -- some of which are lost to us today -- so his translations are widely accepted as authentic and faithful.

There's also the English version of the Vulgate Bible known as the Douay-Rheims. It's an almost word-for-word translation of the Latin so the English will sound archaic to our modern ears. It's not as frustrating as, say, reading Shakespeare but it's pretty close. I personally prefer (and currently use) a Douay-Rheims Bible that has the Clementina Vulgata beside it. It's essentially Latin and English side by side. You can find one here.

If want one with plain English, the New American Bible Revised Edition would suffice. (If you use this website, let me know. I have a discount code from my last purchase.)

​

>I know nothing of the culture or norms of the Church, or what to expect as a new member.

One major rule to remember is that you can't receive Holy Communion until after you've gone to Confession. Given your situation, I would recommend setting up an appointment with a parish priest so he can give his full attention to you and your needs.

​

>I do not know how to introduce myself to the congregation

There's usually no need to introduce yourself to the congregation since parishes tend to be big. If you would like to formally introduce yourself, however, give the parish priest a call and set up a meeting with him. It would also be a great chance to speak with him about your situation and get some pastoral guidance.

​

>or tell a good Catholic church from a lesser one

Many here would recommend a more traditional parish. If that's not available, I'd say any Catholic church would do. If you're unsure about a particular church's standing, just give us the details on this sub. I'm sure someone here would be able to double check for you.

​

>I know nothing of the Saints or the miracles, or what has been confirmed by the Church and what hasn't.

These are things you can learn later on. Focus on Jesus first. Rebuild your relationship with Him. Start with the basics; if you don't, you might burn yourself out. There is A LOT to learn about the Faith. Some say it's a lifelong endeavour. :P

​

>I am also looking for a reading list to explore Catholic philosophy beyond those you typically encounter in standard philosophical reading, such as Aquinas or Pascal.

Hmmm... this depends on what sorts of things interest you. A good one that lightly touches on philosophy is Socrates Meets Jesus by Peter Kreeft (anything by this guy is pretty good, by the way).

A book that may be more pressing to your current situation is Why Be Catholic? by Patrick Madrid and Abraham Skorka, Why We're Catholic by Trent Horn, as well as Why I am a Catholic by Brandon Vogt. (They might need to work on a more original title, though :P) Since you have an Evangelical background, Crossing the Tiber by Steve Ray might be helpful (although it can be a bit dry; also, it mostly deals with the Church's teaching on Baptism and the Eucharist) as well as Rome Sweet Home by Scott and Kimberly Hahn.

You can never go wrong with classics such as a collection of C. S. Lewis' works, The Divine Comedy by Dante Alighieri, The Seven Story Mountain by Thomas Merton, and Confessions by St. Augustine.

If you want a historical examination of Jesus and the Early Church, a good place to start is The Case for Christ by Brant Pitre, The History of the Church: From Christ to Constantine by St. Eusebius, and The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. I'd like to thrown in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David J. Hess. This last one pertains to the Catholic claim regarding the papacy (and which I think is one of the strongest arguments in favour of the Catholic Church being the original one that the Lord founded).

Finally, there are YouTube channels you can follow/binge watch such as Bishop Robert Barron and Ascension Presents. Also, an amazing video about the Catholic Faith is a series made by Bishop Barron when he was "just" a priest called Catholicism.

I'm sorry if that's overwhelming but you raised some good questions. :P Anyway, I imagine it may be a lot right now so take it slowly, don't dive in through all of it at once. Find a local Catholic church, call up the priest, set up a meeting, then take it from there. And remember, you can always pray; God's always willing to talk with you.

God established his covenant with Abraham. The promise did not belong to Ishmael but to Isaac. But Ishmael would also become a great chieftain--the father of many nations. From Isaac, the promise passed Esau and went to Jacob, who, it should be noted, inherited Esau's blessing by deceit.

You see, God established one people. One nation. "Through Isaac shall your descendants be named".

Even the twelve tribes were one people under a single leadership.

Joshua was ordained to succeed Moses, when Moses commissioned him by the laying on of hands.

To the crowds and to his disciples, Jesus said, "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you." There is one seat; one cathedra.

In the upper room before his Passion, when he was with the twelve, Jesus prayed, "Father...I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word...Sanctify them in the truth.

>I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one.

After his resurrection, Jesus came among the twelve...

>On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

This was something that Jesus gave to the twelve (at this point, the 11--yet Judas' "office" was vacant, and had to be filled).

But to one Jesus gave a special trust. To St. Peter, Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom, "and the gates of hell will never prevail against it". Whatever he binds on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever he looses on earth will be loosed in heaven.

There's a great deal of special significance to the location Jesus chose to ask his disciples--the twelve--this question; "Who do you say that I am?"

He brought them to a temple erected by Herod in honor of Caesar, who fashioned himself "The Son of God". It was a temple in the side of an enormous rock. In the rock and in the temple was a pit that was literally said to be "the gates of hell", into which live sacrifice was thrown. And in various clefts of the rock were statues--idols--to the Greek god of sheep and shepherds, Pan.

So here was a false temple to a false Son of God, built upon a rock with a gate to hell, and all overseen by a false shepherd.

And Peter confessed, "You are the anointed one, the Son of the Living God".

To which Jesus replied, "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven."

>And I tell you, you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The note in the RSV-Catholic Edition, says:

>Peter has the key to the gates of the city of God. This power is exercised through the church. “Binding” and “loosing” are rabbinic terms referring to excommunication, then later to forbidding or allowing something. Not only can Peter admit to the kingdom; he also has power to make authoritative decisions in matters of faith or morals.

There's a reference implicit in Jesus' proclamation to Isaiah 22.

>Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him... I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eli′akim the son of Hilki′ah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

The steward being referred to in the House of David--the office he held--was that of the "prime minister" or vizier. Joseph had this role in the court of Pharaoh.

>So Pharaoh said to Joseph: ...you shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.

This was the power given to Peter. The context is [necessarily] entirely Jewish. And the disciples would have understood it as such.

>The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed

And Peter said (in Acts 3):

>Moses said, ‘The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren as he raised me up. You shall listen to him in whatever he tells you. And it shall be that every soul that does not listen to that prophet shall be destroyed from the people.’ And all the prophets who have spoken, from Samuel and those who came afterwards, also proclaimed these days. You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God gave to your fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your posterity shall all the families of the earth be blessed.’ God, having raised up his servant, sent him to you first, to bless you in turning every one of you from your wickedness.”

The woman at the well, knowing her Torah, said to Jesus, "Sir, I perceive that you are a prophet."

>When the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. And many more believed because of his word. They said to the woman, “It is no longer because of your words that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is indeed the Savior of the world.”

Jesus is the prophet like Moses. He is the new Moses. Moses had a seat. Christ has a seat. The scribes and the pharisees sit on Moses' seat. And they were told to do whatever they told them.

Who sits on Jesus' seat--or throne? Yes, Jesus' throne is in heaven, but Jesus is not just a prophet but a king as well. And a king in the line of David. And he gave Peter the "keys of the kingdom", making Peter, Rocky, his prime minister. The prime ministry is an office, just as each of the twelve apostles held an office.

>In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, “Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry...For it is written in the book of Psalms,

‘Let his habitation become desolate,
and let there be no one to live in it’;

and

‘His office let another take.’

An office, like the office of President of the United States, is something which allows of successors. The successors inherit, or assume the powers inherent in the office. The personal qualities of the man don't really matter. The office itself confers the power.

And what is the power? The power to bind and loose.

Abraham was one. Moses was one. Christ is one.

The Church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

How can the Church be one if she isn't united in communion to the office of he to whom our LORD gave the keys of the kingdom--he who has the authority of the king?

I once felt like you. That the Catholic claims were uncharitable and divisive. But if we're not one, how can we say that we're of Christ.

>Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

,,,

>The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.

We are one if we are together in Christ. And we are together in Christ if we are in communion with the successor of Peter, who everyone acknowledges to be the Bishop of Rome.

And the gates of hell will never prevail.

The charism of Papal Infallibility is often misunderstood. All it means is that God will never permit the whole Church, in communion with the successor of Peter, to be led into error in matters of faith and morals.

That's all it means. Not that any Pope will be impeccable*. Or that any Pope will never make a mistake. Or that any Pope won't ever be a scoundrel or even a heretic. What matters is that the true successor of Peter will never commit the Church to any error in matters of faith and morals.

So we are one if we are united to the successor of Peter.

I'm almost out of space, so let me suggest some resources:

Former Pentecostal Pastor Alex Jones converted to the Catholic Church

Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Chair - Steve Ray

The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451

And finally, this was instrumental in my conversion to the Catholic Faith, so I can't recommend this enough:

Catechism of the Catholic Church

(Also here)

Hi there! Thanks for giving us a look!

The central "thing" about Catholicism is that we are the continuation of the Church that Christ founded on his Apostles/Peter. By looking at the history of Christianity, I think you'll find that statement is true (like I did).

I'm a cradle Catholic, but I never really looked into or practiced my faith that much. One day, I thought I'd have myself a go and try to disprove religion. Religion is just holding us back as a society right? So let me start at the top of the ladder. I tried to disprove theism in general.

Couldn't do it.

Ok, let me disprove Christianity then.

Couldn't do it.

Dang, can I at least prove that Catholicism isn't the true form of Christianity?

LOL, nope. I ended up having a much stronger connection to my faith. Presently, I am discerning the priesthood. I thank God every day that He allowed me to have such arrogance as to think "I can disprove God!" and travel down that rabbit hole. I came out with a profound love and trust for God. It was stressful and hair-pulling, but worth it!

I, for one, am a reader. Literature is what brought me back to the Church. There area many works which I would recommend:

• a small encyclical by Pope John Paul II called Fides et Ratio, or Faith and Reason in Latin. This very short book is about how faith and human reason are not opposed to each other! Faith and reason are two wings of the same dove on which man ascends to God. It's a very simple, yet important thing to read, and sets the stage for Catholic philosophy and theology.
  
  
• The Fathers Know Best by Jimmy Akin. Jimmy converted to Catholicism after being a Baptist. This amazing book shows historical documents from the Early Church and shows how the Church Fathers, those who studied under the Apostles themselves, prove that Catholicism is the true form of Christianity.
  
  
• The Protestant's Dilemma is a fantastic read. It points to the inconsistencies in Protestantism and how such a religion cannot work. After I finished this book, I realized that every branch of Protestantism was false, and that the only true religion could be either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.
  
  
• Jesus, Peter, and the Keys convinced me Catholicism was true and Orthodoxy was false because of its denial of the Papacy. I was hooked.
  
  
• In your situation, specifically with the attachment to Our Lady that you have, Behold Your Mother is a beautiful read. It's written by Tim Staples, another Catholic convert who converted his whole family to the Church. Tim explains why Catholics love Mary so much, and where all our fancy Mary doctrines come from. I think you would benefit greatly from this read!
  
  Finally, Catholic Answers has a YouTube channel. They have a 2 hour show every weekday in which they answer questions from Catholics and non-Catholics, and upload these questions as short videos. Any question you have should be answered here.
  
  There are many other books you could look into, but we don't want to scare you away! We have almost 2,000 years of material to read.

Hi! Wow, well, it sounds like we've been in similar places. I was raised in a Reformed Protestant household; we were ostensibly Reformed Baptist, although we also attended an OPC congregation nearby. If you had told me a year ago that I would be a Catholic, I would've absolutely laughed at you; I was an obstinate Baptist! God gradually worked in my life over June-July 2018, preparing my heart for the Catholic Church.

My encouragement would be to take your time, to take each step in prayer, and be committed to searching for the truth. Ask lots of questions, especially the difficult ones. I sat down over coffee with a priest, explained where I was theologically, and then tried to ask the most difficult questions I could. It was incredibly helpful! And you know, he couldn't always answer the questions; sometimes, I'd contact a professor at a seminary or Catholic college, othertimes a Reformed convert to Catholicism, to track down the answers. One optional step is buying books; I probably bought far more than I actually needed, mainly because I wanted to find the best work on each topic or doctrine I could. I genuinely wanted to give Catholicism a fair shake, while asking the toughest questions I could muster up.

>Once saved always saved

Well, that's a Calvinist doctrine, as you might know. Not only has it not been the teaching of the universal Church, East and West, for 2,000 years, it's not even compatible with the teaching of Martin Luther! Here is a really solid reply to OSAS on Catholic.com, as well as a fascinating piece on Called to Communion titled, "Persevering Most Assuredly: One Reason To Prefer Luther Over Calvin".

>Praying through saints (i understand reveering them)

That's a really good question! There's several wonderful resources on the intercession of the saints, but off the top of my head, these are the ones I found most useful:

• "Do The Saints Pray For Us?"
  
• "Intercession of the Saints" over on Catholic.com
  
• "Saints" on FishEaters
  
  >Purgatory
  
  Oh boy, don't we all have problems with that! I think that it's probably one of the most difficult doctrines to grasp. Here's a couple of articles off of the top of my head. I'm expecting these to be starting points; when you have more specific questions about purgatory, I'd encourage you to feel free to DM me (full disclosure, I'm just a normal 21 year old, not seasoned apologist or anything), start a new thread here on r/Catholicism, ask a priest, or call in and ask Catholic Answers Live.
  
  
• "CS Lewis Believed in Purgatory" - this might seem an odd article (I mean, C.S. Lewis, the Protestant? Why would we bring him into a discussion on Purgatory?), but I think you'll find it a really interesting engagement of the Catholic doctrine.
  
• Lawrence Feingold on Purgatory - someone must have recently paid for a transcript of this, because I only remember finding the audio! This was wonderful, and really dug into the Jewish roots of the doctrine.
  
• "Purgatory: The Final Theosis" - sounds the title for a baller sci-fi film, but this was perhaps one of the most straight forward and helpful pieces on Purgatory that I found.
  
  >The Pope
  
  Woo boy! This has been the largest issue for me, and the main grappling point between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Catholic Church for me. There is so much misinformation on this doctrine, even among Catholics! I'd encourage you to check out this book; it's inexpensive, and really worth your time. In fact, if you were to choose to buy one paperback, this would be what I'd suggest: The Early Papacy to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortesque. It sounds really dry, but it was honestly amazing; it really established for me the biblical nature of the Papacy, as well as its historicity. He also helpfully shaped the limits of the papal office!
  
  
• The articles over on CalledtoCommunion about the Papacy really helped answer a lot of the questions I had about the doctrine beyond what Fortesque addresses.
  
  
• "Was Peter the First Pope?" over on FishEaters
  
  --------
  
  I'll answer some more here if I can; this is just all off the top of my head, tbh, and I'm sure that everyone else will be helpful!

From the East

Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394)
>For both the Son came forth from the Father, as the Scripture says, and the Spirit proceeds from God and from the Father. But just as being without cause pertains to the Father alone, and cannot be made to agree with the Son and the Spirit, so also, conversely, being from a cause, which is peculiar to the Son and the Spirit, is not of such a nature as to be contemplated in the Father. Now, as it is common to the Son and the Spirit to exist in a not-ungenerated way, in order that no confusion arise as to the underlying subject, one must again seek out the unconfused difference in their properties, so that both what is common may be preserved, and what is proper to each may not be confused. For the one is called by Holy Scripture "the Only-Begotten Son of the Father," and the word leaves His property at that; but the Spirit both is said to be from the Father, and is further testified to be from the Son. For, it says, "if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His". Therefore the Spirit, Who is from God, is also the Spirit of Christ; but the Son, Who is from God, neither is nor is said to be "of the Spirit," nor does this relative order become reversed.

and
>While we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another; — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another through that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the mediation of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from his relation by way of nature to the Father.

and
>Where in each case activity in working good shows no diminution or variation whatever, how unreasonable it is to suppose the numerical order to be a sign of any diminution, or any variation with respect to nature. It is as if a man were to see a divided flame burning on three torches (and we will suppose that the cause of the third light is the first flame, kindling the end torch by transmission through the middle one), and were to maintain that the heat in the first exceeded that of the others; that that next it showed a variation from it in the direction of the less; and that the third could not be called fire at all, though it burnt and shone just like fire, and did everything that fire does. But if there is really no hindrance to the third torch being fire, though it has been kindled from a previous flame, what is the philosophy of these men, who profanely think that they can slight the dignity of the Holy Spirit because He is named by the Divine lips after the Father and the Son?

St. Cyril of Alexandria
>The Spirit is assuredly in no way changeable; or even if some think Him to be so infirm as to change, the disgrace will be traced back to the divine nature itself, if in fact the Spirit is from God the Father and, for that matter, from the Son, being poured forth substantially from both, that is to say, from the Father through the Son.

and

>But even if the Spirit exists in his own hypostasis, and, moreover, is understood in his own manner, according to which he is Spirit and not Son, nevertheless he is not foreign to the Son. For he has been called the Spirit of Truth, and Christ is the Truth, and he is poured forth from him, just as, surely, he is poured out also from the Father

St. Epiphanius
>But someone will say, "Therefore we are saying that there are two Sons. And how then is He the Only-begotten?" Well then. "Who art thou that repliest against God?" [Rom 9:20]. For if he calls the one Who is from Him the Son, and the one Who is from both (παρ᾽ ἀμφοτέρων) the Holy Spirit, which things we understand by faith alone, from the saints— full of light, givers of light, they have their operation full of light…

and
>He is from the Father and the Son, being third in denomination

and
>For just as "No one knows the Father except the Son, nor the Son except the Father", so I dare to say that no one knows the Spirit except the Father and the Son, that is, the one from Whom He proceeds and the one from Whom He receives, and that no one knows the Son and the Father except the Holy Spirit, He Who truly glorifies, Who teaches all things, Who is from the Father and the Son.

In 680 a Syrian monk of Byzantine culture, St. Theodore of Tarsus, precided over the Council of Hatfield that taught the filioque, saying
>the Holy Spirit, ineffably proceeding from the Father and the Son, as proclaimed by all whom we have mentioned
above, holy apostles, and prophets, and doctors

The Bekkos blog with that introduction I linked is sort of dedicated to the filioque and the union of the East and West. John Bekkos, after whom the blog is named, was a post-schism Patriarch of Constantinople (Eastern Orthodox) who after studying the eastern fathers, came to believe that the teachings of the Eastern Fathers (e.g. Cyril of Alexandria) and the western filioque were essentially pointing to the same truth. This is in stark opposition to the later Orthodox hero Mark of Ephesus, who maintained that the teachings of Augustine on the procession are heretical. I think it's obvious why the view of Bekkos makes more sense. You might read this short bit on Maximus the Confessor as well (another very important saint for East and West dialogue, since he defends the Western teaching on the procession) https://bekkos.wordpress.com/2008/01/21/st-maximus-on-the-filioque/

One famous Maximus passage is

>For just as the Holy Spirit exists as the Father’s by nature, according to substance, so also, according to substance, is he the Son’s, in that, in an ineffable way, he proceeds from the Father substantially through the Son who is begotten.

If you want to learn more about the claims to Petrine authority from Rome check out Dom John Chapman's Studies on the Early Papacy or (though less indepth) Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy. You can see a slightly shorted essay from Chapman on Jerome and the papacy here. Newman's section on the papacy in his Development of Christian Doctrine is also good.

There are also good scriptural defences of the filioque as well, see this work (pages 433-443) written by one of the Church's Doctors, St. Alphonsus.

Hope this helps. I have added a bit more when I had time. I may comment a bit more latter.

Evolution in nbd in the Catholic church so that's not an issue. The other two issues I'll try to address as best I can, but feel free to respond with more questions/clarifications if need be.

Confession - not sure what specifically you don't like about it so here we go

• this has a fairly in-depth answer about why we go to confession, but it's primarily meant to be a response to Protestants' inquiries regarding confession (not sure if that's where you are coming from)
  
  
• this is a better explanation if you're not coming to the table with a Protestant background or desires
  
  
• Over-all I would say the reason I go to confession is because I want to be back in union with God. Through sin I separate myself from Him and through Confession I am able to gain back this union. As human beings we want to have a tangible experience of forgiveness and going to confession provides us with this opportunity. We are able to bring everything in our heart to the table and leave it there. There are also the benefits of having someone (the priest) give you feedback on what to do so you don't commit certain sins again.
  
  So that's what I got on Confession.
  
  Ok so no premarital sex is complicated to explain, but very beautiful (in my opinion) once it is fully understood - but it's definitely not a sin you could ignore and be truly Catholic
  
  
• Your best bet if you want to understand what the Church teaches on premarital sex is to check out JPII's [Theology of the Body] (http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM). It's a fairly dense text so I would recommend this as a starter text to get some background on things. There is also this book with is essentially the same information in a Q&A format.
  
  
• If that's a little too over-whelming this website has some decent Q&A about the topic - my one warning with that is that it's meant for teenagers for the most part and sometimes they over-simplify things or focus more on the negatives of having sex before marriage rather than the positives of waiting until marriage which I think is an unproductive approach, but what can you do...
  
  Hope some of that was helpful! If you are interested in the Catholic faith you can always try contacting your local parish and setting up a meeting with a priest who could talk you through any questions you might have. Best of luck!

Certainly the philosophies of the Pagan Greeks can be powerful tools, and the Church has always made use of them, but there is a danger that can come if we allow that philosophy to take prominence in our thought above what has been revealed to us by God. We find that Roman Catholicism can flirt rather dangerously with that line at times, and moreover, that at any rate there is no aspect of pagan philosophy that is at all necessary for us in comparison to what we have already been given in the Church. The best we can say about the old Greeks is that they are incomplete.

​

As for a divergence of tradition, I think it is fairly apparent, looking at the Roman church today. Even if we set aside the total upheaval that occurred in the wake of Vatican II, almost all of what Rome considers "traditional" today is itself innovative. If we go back to Anselm's novel theory of atonement, propagated throughout the Roman Catholic world just a few decades after the Schism began, we can see the harbingers of a totally new spirituality for the West. Anselm promulgated the "satisfaction theory" of atonement, in which the primary method by which Mankind is saved is by the person Christ 'satisfying' the needs of God's wrath against the human race. This is a total divergence from what Church previously believed, and is foreign to the traditional understanding of atonement - the fundamental difference here being that it sets up a dichotomy between mankind and God, a wall between us.

Instead of God being our ever-loving Father who desires us to become truly His children and participants in Him, with the means of our salvation being a union of our nature to Christ's, God instead becomes a foreign agent to humanity. Our means of salvation becomes indirect - we are saved because Christ bestows upon us a surplus of merit, instead of because he bestows upon us actual participation in His nature. This foreignness immediately begins to permeate throughout Roman Catholic spirituality - we see it in the Scholastics, who begin to turn both to the Pagan philosphers, but even to Muslim and Jewish thinkers to find explanation for God. We see it in their developments of mariolatry, in which the Virgin Mary becomes an entirely different race of being than the rest of humanity in the Immaculate Conception. We see it supreme exaltation of the Pope of Rome above all others, and how the binding tie of Christian unity becomes submission to the pope in Rome, rather than in the chalice of Communion which all Christians share in equally. We see it in the highly-increased focus on physical suffering - in the flagellants, in the stigmata, in the Sacred Heart, in the focus on Christ as one who died instead of one who Lived.

All these practices are not the true inheritance of the West, but rather are institutions that began after the Schism. Even the beloved TLM of the "trads" is the "Tridentine Latin Mass" - Tridentium being the Latin name for the city of Trent - as in, the Council of Trent of the 1500s. The TLM is a liturgical overhaul that brushed away many of the older and local traditions that had stuck around.

It is a mindset, in short, in which we are not truly "Co-heirs with Christ", as St. Paul says, but truly subservient and bound to submission only. It is a spirituality based around the idea that the Prodigal Son's father really did hire him as a servant when the son returned home.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, really, but that outlines some of the issues as I see it.

​

Inasmuch as intro-level material goes, I would suggest Fr. Andrew Damick's "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy." Therein he deals comparatively with many Christian groups against the Orthodox Church, although obviously the most relevant parts here are the sections which deal with Rome. He has it available both as a free podcast here https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/orthodoxyheterodoxy

or as a book https://www.amazon.com/Orthodoxy-Heterodoxy-Complicated-Religious-Landscape/dp/1944967176/ref=pd_cp_14_1/146-8495025-5559228?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1944967176&pd_rd_r=1030f57d-ff08-469a-ba2d-1012747c7cf5&pd_rd_w=Giuwm&pd_rd_wg=nd9eH&pf_rd_p=0e5324e1-c848-4872-bbd5-5be6baedf80e&pf_rd_r=VHQ0WNVD83XCQNX37VZC&psc=1&refRID=VHQ0WNVD83XCQNX37VZC

There's a shorter collection of essays here specifically focused on St. Peter and how he was viewed in the early Church.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0881411256

​

On the flip side, Dr. Joseph Farrell's "God, History and Dialectic" is a fantastic and very comprehensive 3-volume series about the development of the Church and the divergence of Rome and Western thought in general. Although the full 3-volume series is (somewhat) expensive, given the size of the books the price is really quite reasonable. My priest, coincidentally, was one of Dr. Farrell's students when Farrell was the Professor of Patristics at St. Tikhon's seminary.

https://www.amazon.com/God-History-Dialectic-Foundation-Europe/dp/B076YNRPTT



​

Hope that mouthful wasn't too much for you. And sorry for taking a little while to get back to you - hope you're doing well.

Get Your Questions Answered

So you have been to Mass but you have some serious questions about the faith that need to be answered before you can consider joining, so now what? Now it is time for you to learn about the Church! The Church has published a book called the Catechism of the Catholic Church (abbreviated as CCC). You can buy a copy just about anywhere or you can read it for free online. The CCC has all the basic teachings of the Church and an index in the back.

As good as the CCC is, it can be dense to read. Another great resource is called the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This is also available for purchase or it can be read online for free online. It contains most of the information in the CCC, but it is organized in a question and answer format. I highly recommend it.

In addition to the CCC, you will find a ton of good information on catholic.com (warning: don’t go into the forums). Also, for converts I find it helpful to read other peoples conversion stories. There is a series of books called Surprised by Truth which contain the testimonial of converts. Also, the book Rome Sweet Rome is the true story of how a Scott and Kimberly Hahn came into the Church despite them starting off as militantly anti-Catholic Protestants.

In addition to those books, here are some other books I recommend.

• The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth
  
• The Essential Catholic Survival Guide
  
• Catholicism All-In-One For Dummies
  
  If you prefer videos, the Catholicism Series by Bishop Robert Barron is excellent and a video series called Symbolon. These video series are a bit pricey, so before buying ask you parish if they have them available to lend out. Also, many parishes have subscriptions to Formed which allows you to watch these videos and many more for free.
  
  If you prefer audio, the website Lighthouse Catholic Media has many talks you can download and listen to.
  
  If you listen to radio in the car, there may be a Catholic radio station for you to listen to. Catholic radio is a good way to learn the faith. You can check to see if there is Catholic radio in your area at the EWTN website.
  
  In addition to everything listed above, you can always as your parish priest questions. Many parishes also have adult education programs which cover many topics. See your parish bulletin or contact the parish office to see what they offer.
  
  As always, you can ask questions here on /r/Catholicism.

Here's my story:

Went to a Great Books college as an angsty atheist. Read St. Anselm's Proslogion and was convinced by his arguments for what's now known as the ontological argument for God.

Slowly acquired a logical belief in a supreme deity. Check.

The jump from "non-material power" to Jesus is pretty big, and this is often the largest gap that most of us need to find ourselves across. It's one thing to recognize that there's a higher power; but believing that the Christian's got it right in capturing this higher power is something entirely different.

I drew from a number of sources to arrive at Christianity.

1. I was raised in the West, and heavily interested in Western literature, so I was comfortable with Christianity — Christmas traditions, yada yada. I don't think I could have ever truly "become one" with Islam or Buddhism or whatever. This is a poor reason for believing, so while I don't ascribe too much weight to my cultural inclinations for Christianity, it did help set me down this path.
   
   
2. Jesus offered more than just a moral philosophy. He made a lot of claims, specifically that he was God on earth. When comparing Him to a lot of the founders of other religions I'd looked at, He and His religion fit with what I imagined would represent a just God.
   
   
3. The history of Christianity is too ridiculous to be accidental. Bunch of Jewish guys willing to suffer execution (and all of them did) to propagate the message of their Rabbi-turned-Hope-Of-The-World? Able to withstand widespread persecution and destruction, while able to still grow in numbers? And even Rome ultimately ditched her ancient gods for this Jewish-based faith? And after the fall of Rome, it was able to withstand the pagan influences of Europe and establish Christendom?
   
   
4. Christianity and Natural Law jive well together. I was heavily influenced by the "Platonic ideals", and I think Christianity captures and exemplifies them all.
   
   Truthfully, I would have liked crossing the gap from god to God to be a bit more sound, but sometime during this crossing faith kicked in.
   
   Slowly acquired belief in Christianity. Check.
   
   Now I had to settle on which account of Christianity is correct.
   
   This was a bit easier for me. If I was Jesus, and wanted to bring as much of my creation into communion with me as possible, how would I do that?
   
   I wouldn't use just a book. If the entire deposit of faith is contained in a written account, it's up to the reader to come up with his or her own interpretation of that account (which has led to tens of thousands of Christian denominations in the last few hundred years). If I were Jesus, I'd ensure that there was an interpretative authority that safeguarded my teachings — and this is what the Catholic Church says she was, is, and will be.
   
   Additionally, Catholicism had history on her side. She was the Church that Christ left. He setup an organizational structure that's still in place... and even with a lot of the nasty crap that the Church did when she was given political power, she survived. Which is itself a miracle.
   
   But ultimately, Catholicism stood or fell on the papacy. If Apostolic succession is true, Catholicism is true. I read Jesus, Peter, and the Keys and walked away convinced that the Catholic church is the church that the ministry of Jesus established. Jesus promised that he'd never leave his Church, and he hasn't — this one organization has stayed open for business for two millennia!
   
   Became a Catholic Christian. Check!
   

I'm going to tell you to ignore most of the historical Jesus deniers as I find they tend to be as educated and reasonable on the matter as creationists, but if you're looking for who the historian was referring to, which would be the historical Jesus of the Gospels i.e. taking the Gospels as providing any historical Jesus, I strongly recommend E.P. Sander's The Historical Figure of Jesus.

Whether or not you accept the Jesus myth it's a fantastic read that provides you with who the historical Jesus of faith would have been, in other words, it sorts of the likely historical Jesus among contradiction in the Bible, and provides much insight and information to the time of Jesus, for instance, the fact that miracle workings were not a sign of divinity^1 and there were many miracle workers in the time of Jesus.^2 It also noted how despite somewhat common belief, Jesus did not bring the new era of love to the Jews. The Jews at the time of Jesus already viewed the law as basically love your God and love your neighbor, citing Leviticus 19:18.^3 The biggest matter he address is perhaps the fact that his followers believed that the coming Kingdom of God was to arrive within their lifetime, which 2000 years have told us never happened. The main purpose of Jesus' ministry was untrue. I have a longer post on the matter here.

As for what that historian was referring to specifically, my guess may be Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman

Mark 7:24-30|Matthew 15:21-28

-------|:-----|:-----
From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know he was there. Yet he could not escape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his feet. Now the woman was a Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin. She begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. He said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ But she answered him, ‘Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.’ Then he said to her, ‘For saying that, you may go—the demon has left your daughter.’ So she went home, found the child lying on the bed, and the demon gone. | Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. Just then a Canaanite woman from that region came out and started shouting, ‘Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is tormented by a demon.’ But he did not answer her at all. And his disciples came and urged him, saying, ‘Send her away, for she keeps shouting after us.’ He answered, ‘I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ But she came and knelt before him, saying, ‘Lord, help me.’ He answered, ‘It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.’ She said, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.’ Then Jesus answered her, ‘Woman, great is your faith! Let it be done for you as you wish.’ And her daughter was healed instantly.


---

|^1 Sanders, E. The Historical Figure of Jesus (p. 157-168). Penguin UK. Kindle Edition.

|^2 Sanders p. 135-143

|^3 Sanders p. 38

These books are pretty solid: Studies on the Early Papacy by Dom John Chapman and The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue

In my opinion, the new testament clearly teaches that Peter had a unique divinely given role among the apostles. Matthew 16:17-19, John 21:17, Luke 22:32, etc.

The early pre-schism Orthodox popes (the ones celebrated as saints by the Orthodox) certainly viewed themselves as much more than first-among-equals, and they often justified it using the above passages. E.g. see this passage from Pope St. Gelasius I

>After (all these) prophetic and evangelical and apostolic writings (which we have set forth above), on which the Catholic Church by the grace of God is founded, we have thought this (fact) also ought to be published, namely that, although the universal Catholic Church spread throughout the world has the one marriage of Christ, nevertheless the holy Roman Church has not been preferred to the other churches by reason of synodical decrees, but she has held the primacy by the evangelical voice of the Lord and Savior saying: Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven [Matt. 16: 18 f.]. There is added also the association of the most blessed Paul the Apostle, the vessel of election, who not at a different time, as the heretics say, but at the one time, on one and the same day, while contending for the prize together with Peter was crowned with a glorious death under Caesar Nero in the City of Rome; and equally have they consecrated the above-mentioned Church of Rome to Christ the Lord and have raised it above all other cities in the whole world by their presence and their venerable triumph.

I've always thought this argument by 9th century melchite bishop Theodore Abu Qurrah was pretty good

>You should understand that the head of the apostles was St. Peter, he to whom Christ said, "You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it." After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberias, "Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes." In another passage, he said to him, "Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them." Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ's words, "I prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them," we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself [and the rest of the apostles themselves]. Rather, he meant nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome [and the holder of the seats of the apostles]. Just as when he said to the apostles, "I am with you always, until the end of the age," he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flock; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, "Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost," he meant nothing other than the holders of his seat. Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by those words. Moreever, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself [and the apostles themselves], this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostle' death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean [them] by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles - Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabellis, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter [and the apostles themselves], then after [them] the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly "the gates of hell," which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts.

>Do you not know that when Arius arose, by command of none other than the bishop of Rome, a council was summoned against him... (Theodore does the same thing for the rest of the six councils, creditting the bishop of Rome with responsibility for each council)...

*the translator of the text said that he thinks the parts in "[]" are possibly later aditions since they don't really go with the authors argument, among other things, IIRC

I think you are a little off. Love, even sexual love, is a gift given to us that allows married couples to imitate (imperfectly) the perfect love of Christ for the church.

When you say that sex is a near occasion of sin I suppose you are right because it is (unfortunately) normal to be lustful. That is not what we were made for though! Our desire should always be to "will the good of the other" as Fr. Barron is fond of saying. That is a true love. What lust does is take something good (sexual love) and twist/pervert it for our own desires.

Take the time to read the "Theology of the Body for Beginners" book. It's an easy read, just over 200 pages. I think you will find that as a married person you are called to heroic virtue and you shouldn't shy away from it!

https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Introduction-Revolution/dp/1934217859/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=RJVE9RJP5688H71KRJVG

> Peter was debated disagreed with and defeated when he supported the judaisers, and Paul and James often disagreed with him and were supported over his personal opinion.

It wasn't that Peter was rejected and Paul and Barnabas (James was presumably with the judaisers) were accepted, but that they changed Peter's mind (and presumably those of other apostles/bishops) on the issue.

> After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” (Acts 15:7-11)

If you're interested in digging into the issue, I recommend The Russian Church and the Papacy, written by an Orthodox theologian who was very concerned with reuniting the Church.

Sorry that this will sound patronizing, but how educated are you about the Bible as a historical document? I majored in religious studies with a focus on Christian origins. I know a good bit about it.

> Jesus claiming to be God IS the whole point of the new testament

This is basically true. But that's not the same as what Jesus, the historical figure, said or believed.

The Bible is inarguably a hodge-podge of different stories and accounts, many of which conflict with each other. The book of John was written much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke, or "Q" and reflects an advanced notion of Christian theology. It's no coincidence that Jesus says things in John that are much different than in the other three. The author of John wasn't somehow aware of Jesus-sayings that the other authors weren't.

> Most everything in the Gospels is proof of the fulfillment of the OT prophecy about the messiah.

Most everything in the Gospels is certainly written to be proof. The authors definitely had that goal in mind. But it doesn't mean that the actual historical events were proof.

> I don't know where you got this nonsense about later sources being less accurate, but there is simply no basis for that.

Yes, there is. I got it from my bachelor's degree (and, ya know, from common sense). I invite you to start your research here and continue with books like this and this (or even this). If you've never performed comparative study of the gospels, this is a neat resource too. (Note that the latter book doesn't even mention John, which is just that far removed from the other gospels.)

> to say Jesus never reliably claimed to be God is just insane

As wrong as you are about the historical facts, I will back off a little here: there is sufficient evidence that Jesus believed himself to be the "Son of Man," and probably even the Messiah. However the more historically reliable documents suggest that he was extremely cagey about saying this himself (Matthew 16 is a perfect example of this), whereas the less reliable documents have him declaring it quite explicitly.

All that being said, I think we left the primary point a little bit. Jesus most certainly was a moral inspiration (whether he called himself that or not), and it's that example—not literal salvation—that my mother (and I, for that matter) are inspired by.

With all due respect and love for the Catechism as mentioned by digifork, perhaps it would be better to start off by reading something that specifically addresses misconceptions about the Church? I'm gonna recommend this one. A good informative read that I think you will enjoy even if you go no further afterwards! Here's the top review on Amazon:

>During the late 90's, I was investigating a number of Christian faiths. For many years I was bouncing around from Protestant church to Protestant church with no real clue as to what I was looking for. Becoming Catholic never entered my mind. Eventually I ran into a Catholic friend who explained a few of the basics of the Church to me. Intrigued, I began to study on my own and found "Why Do Catholics Do That?" The title seemed straightforward enough, so I picked up the book and read it from cover to cover. It was amazing. Kevin Orlin Johnson's book answered all of my major questions about the Church and most of my minor questions. I had read a number of other books up to that point and none of them gave me answers as honestly or inoffensively as this one. It didn't try to hammer anything down my throat. Instead, it gave me answers in plain English and with no intent to brush me off as "just another Protestant." After reading the book, I decided to enter the RCIA process, where I entered the Church at Easter in 2000.
I can honestly say that this book was the decision maker for me. It is written in a way that isn't too "bookish" or intellectual for the casual reader, yet has a good amount of information in it. The writing style used, which has a lot of humor in it, lessened the blows of what some consider "cocky Catholicism." Another reviewer felt that in her original review this book came across as too cocky. I understand what she is talking about. I've met quite a few people with that cocky attitude. That attitude was one of the major things that turned me off from the Church originally. This book to me, however, wasn't too cocky. I enjoyed it. It gave the reader information in a straight manner. I also found nothing anti-Semitic about this book, as another reviewer mentions.
With this book, I learned that a number of the things that I was taught as a child about the Catholic Church was mere propaganda or, in most cases, misinformation. A lot of what I thought I knew about the Church was actually a misunderstanding of practices and beliefs.
I believe this book, with its simplicity, could easily challenge some of the harder hitting Protestant theories about the Catholic faith. Although it doesn't really go into any major theological arguments, it openly explains why Catholics do the things they do. It's hard to argue with someone when they are straightforward and honest with their beliefs. Perhaps that's what we need a little more of in the world.

Well, for a great general history of Christianity until the middle ages I recommend The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine series, Vol. 1, Vol. 2, and Vol. 3. This was written by Jaroslav Pelikan, an ecumenically minded convert to Eastern Orthodoxy from Lutheranism.

Something for the intersection of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy: Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma is a great summary of what Roman Catholicism actually is.

The Spirit of the Liturgy is a beautiful exploration of what you experienced at York Minster written by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI during his Cardinal days.

As for Celtic Christianity... to be honest it isn't an interest of mine so I can't personally recommend anything. However, these look good:

Christ in Celtic Christianity: Britain and Ireland from the Fifth to the Tenth Century

Celtic Monasticism: The Modern Traveler to the Early Irish Church

Irish Jesus, Roman Jesus : the Formation of Early Irish Christianity

Celtic Christianity: Making Myths and Chasing Dreams

Good luck in your studies, God bless.

I recommend the Denzinger Enchiridion (Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum). It compilates all of the basic texts written about catholic faith and teachings throughout the centuries. Everything there is regarded as infallible, while the Catechism, as someone already pointed out, is fallible (and somewhat biased). It'll give you a good grip on what the RCC believes. That book might also help.

Catholicism has marvelous intelectual and spiritual traditions, from the thomists to the french mystics. I recommend you look further through catholic literature, you won't regret it. It'll give you a richer understanding of Christianity as a whole. And catholics are very good and charitable people! (You probably wouldn't guess it by visiting r/catholicism, though).

P.S.: I'll be praying for you. Good luck with everything.

>you imbecile

I can already tell this is going to be fun.

>Jesus has literally ZERO contemporary historical data.

That's not what you asked for. You asked for peer-reviewed arguments for the historical existence of Jesus, of which I said there are thousands, and to which I said you'd have a much more difficult time finding the opposite--- peer reviewed articles and books arguing that Jesus was entirely a myth.

>I’ll wait for those libraries of sources you have.

Where do you want to start?

Probably the best place for you to start is with Bart Ehrman, a leading scholar of on the development of Christianity, and he's also a popular skeptic speaker and writer. In addition to publishing he's written popular books about how many of the books of the Bible were forgeries, and how the belief that Jesus was divine developed in early Christianity, he also wrote an entire book laying out the widely accepted case that Jesus was likely a real historical person, written directly to skeptical lay people like yourself.

If you want a great introduction to the scholarly debate about the historical Jesus, you could start here or here. I also think Dale Allison's work is great critical look at some of the issues at work in the debate. There are lots of historical reconstructions of Jesus' life. Some of the more popular ones like Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan tend to sell books to liberal Christian audiences, so I've always thought E.P. Sanders treatment was perferable. I'll spare you the links to scholars who identify as orthodox Christians, like Luke Timothy Johnson or N.T. Wright. It sounded like you specifically wanted more scholarly sources and not popular books, so you could just look at the scholarly journal dedicated to the study of the historical Jesus. Or the Jesus Seminar. Or either of the following Introductions to the New Testament textbooks which are used in secular universities throughout the english speaking world:

Introduction to the New Testament by Mark Allen Powell

Introduction to the New Testament by Bart Ehrman

These are the ones I'm personally most familiar with. There are tons more like Geza Vermes and Amy Jill Levine I haven't read and I'm not as familiar with.

But I'm not telling you anything you wouldn't learn in any basic 101 intro to New Testament Class. The academic consensus is that regardless of what you think about him as a religious figure, it is extremely likely that there was a first century Jew named Jesus who started a faith movement that led to him being crucified. Why do scholars think this? Because by the time Paul started writing his letters 20 years later there was a growing, spreading religious movement that worship a crucified Jew named Jesus as their messiah, and given critical analysis of the texts produced by this movement, some of which are now in the New Testament, there really doesn't exist a coherent argument for the development of this movement that doesn't include the existence of a first century Jew named Jesus who was crucified.

>No doubt there's a historical precedent -- maybe we can thank our friend Constantine for that. As far as theological precedent (and here's a great time to point out that I'm not a theologian), I think the onus is on those who make the extraordinary claim (i.e., Rome). What support is there for the papacy in scripture, other than that single, not unambiguous line in Matthew?


I am a theologian, unfortunately. A historical theologian at that. And I work on the Fathers.

Firstly, the idea that Constantine has anything to do with the Roman Bishop's primacy is absurd. We're verging into Dan Brown territory here.

Secondly, a book I always recommend as a good primer on the historical issue is Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. There's also a very good article by Fr. Brian Daley, SJ in Journal of Theological Studies, but if you aren't a theologian, you probably don't have access to it.

I agree with you that if Rome is going to make certain claims, she ought to back them up. The fact is, however, that she has. Convincingly. The history and theology is on the Catholic Church's side, I think.

>Well, maybe, but I've also heard that fascism makes the trains run on time...

The Constantine reference plus comparing us to fascists wins you best Protestant polemic of the day award.

> 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 Historical Figure of Jesus

That would be interesting to read. I bet it has heaps to do with Aquinas. I know Feser affirms a Natural Law Theory of Morality which is very Catholic and so might be a part of it. Generally, it's no surprise to me. I think any careful and rational inquirer who comes to believe the Nicene Creed will be lead to either the Orthodox or Catholic faith. And I think of those two the weight of the evidence is slightly but appreciably in favour of Catholicism.

It's catholicity better satisfies the Great Commission; I think a better case for continuity of aim and organisation back to the Apostolic Church (subject to certain qualifications) can be made; the Filoque is in my view needed to make sense of the Trinity; add to this good evidence for apparent miraculous confirmation in modern times by Marian apparitions at Fatima and Lordes etc.; and pretty good a priori arguments for the necessity of a living voice and so a papacy. To this last point one might add the historical argument for the primacy of Peter though that might be a bit controversial!

This volume by Owen Chadwick may fit your bill in terms of page range.

Hillerbrand's a big name in Reformation studies. He wrote this ~500p. volume on the 16th century. His anthology of writings from the era is also very useful.

Diarmaid MacCulloch's the Reformation exceeds your page range (~800) but is very entertaining and gives a good overview of the world leading up to it. I think it's conceptually ambitious because it discusses the Reformation's effects on early Modernity in the 18th century.

On the other extreme of the page range (< 200 p.) is this Oxford Very Short Introduction by Peter Marshall. I like this series quite a bit, and I liked Marshall's emphasis on placing the Reformation in its political and social context.

If you want to focus on doctrine and theology, Jaroslav Pelikan's volume (~500pp) is highly acclaimed (along with his entire Christian Tradition series.)

There are several good ones. As a Protestant, I am sure you would appreciate the biblical background, so here are some I recommend:

1. Walking with Mary (Sri is an excellent theologian whose writing is very accessible).
   
2. Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary (Pitre is also very good. While I haven’t read this, if it’s like any of his other books, it will be excellent.)
   
3. Hail Holy Queen (A a popular classic, also listed above).
   
4. Rethinking Mary in the New Testament (A new in-depth treatment focusing on the Biblical background).
   
   You really can’t go wrong with any of these titles. Just check out the descriptions and reviews and see which one you like best.

Allegro’s legacy is an interesting one, but there’s a reason I didn’t mention him, as I know his reputation isn’t one that Sam or Bart would concern themselves with. Instead, I would push people towards this book: https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Gospels-History-Hallucinogens-Christianity/dp/1620555026

I was more so referring to things like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/06/religion.israelandthepalestinians and psychedelic imagery in religious art: https://www.reddit.com/r/Psychonaut/comments/44dynv/psychedelic_symbols_in_religious_artwork_album/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=comment_list

Michael Pollan, in The Botany of Desire also references the “forbidden fruit” as possibly being an entheogenic substance:

> "...The content of the knowledge Adam and Eve could gain by tasting of the fruit does not matter nearly as much as its form - that is, the very fact that there was spiritual knowledge of any kind to be had from nature. The new faith sought to break the human bond with magic nature, to disenchant the world of plants and animals by directing our attention to a single God in the sky. Yet Jehovah couldn't very well pretend the tree of knowledge didn't exist, not when generations of plant-worshipping pagans knew better. So the pagan tree is allowed to grow even in Eden, though ringed around now with a strong taboo. Yes, there is spiritual knowledge in nature, the new God is acknowledging, and its temptations are fierce, but I am fiercer still. Yield to it, and you will be punished. So unfolds the drug war's first battle."

I realize that “pothead-intellectuals” are wrong about most things and like to equate everything to psychedelic use, but to think that religion/spirituality and entheogens don’t have any significance to one another is a bit foolish. It a lot of ways, it seems just the opposite: https://www.maps.org/news-letters/v12n1/12117stu.html & http://bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/psychedelics-and-the-religious-experience

The Society of Biblical Literature (the main learned society for the field) launched an educational site this year called Bible Odyssey, featuring the complete contents of the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary and a lot of original content. Have a look through the "Bible Basics" section. Before the site was launched, it was announced that it would include the great, scholarly articles from the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary, and let us all hope that this will eventually be accomplished.

In buying a Bible, remember that it is a collection of literature written thousands of years ago in exotic foreign cultures; such a journey is not to be undertaken without a guide. You need an annotated edition. The HarperCollins Study Bible and the New Oxford Annotated Bible are both excellent references. Those Bibles have maps in the back, but the Oxford Bible Atlas may be a useful supplement. If you're not looking to spend a lot, the New American Bible is a great translation with lighter, but still very illuminating notes.

For background on the societies in which the Bible and Christianity were formed, The Ancient Mediterranean World: From the Stone Age to A.D. 600. For studies on what can be known about Jesus from historical evidence, The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders and Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart Ehrman. (Ehrman has a blog which is worth the subscription; you can also learn a lot from his lectures and interviews on YouTube.)

For the perspective of modern Christians and not just information about the religion's history, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton and Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis are two books that are considered classics by many Christians today, across denominational lines. There's a sort of intellectual line running through the two, since Lewis was converted from atheism by reading Orthodoxy (although he did not become a Catholic like Chesterton, as his friend J. R. R. Tolkien had hoped).

Have fun!

for #5, I'd definitely check out Scott Hahn's talk on Mary and Brant Pitre's book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. I'd also read about some Saints and their writings on the Eucharist and try to see how they lived Sacramental lives. Here's a great website to have as a reference on the Eucharist, which also has a section at the bottom on Saints and the Eucharist + Miracles.

I'd also learn more about what the Mass is and how different parts of the Mass tie into Scripture. Even the responses and prayers that happen throughout the Mass tie back into Scripture (from the Sanctuary Lamp in Leviticus to Centurion's confession). It will really enrich your experience every week at Mass and help you learn to pray the Mass and prepare you more to receive the Eucharist every time. I'd give Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI's The Spirit of the Liturgy a read one day too in the future. I always found it so beautiful how the "New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New". When you reflect on it, Christians across the centuries have always been drawn into this beautiful mystery in a very special way at every Mass and you can see their responses to God's love across the ages in the Saints. We're very fortunate to be a part of this communion and mystery. As was Christ's divinity hidden in the Cross, there he is also "hidden" in the Mass, within the Tabernacles across the world, and with us after every Holy Communion. 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 has been one of my favorites to reflect along with this.

I am Catholic myself, but thought Robert Wilken's First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity did an excellent job of focusing on Christianity before the Middle Ages, and of not being Eurocentric. It's only 400 odd pages, and a pretty easy read. Only downside: No footnotes (although he does have extensive endnotes with citations).

Don't skip out on the Medieval stuff, of course, but it seems to me that other commenters have focused there. All I'm saying is, the Early Church is far more fascinating than many give it credit for.

I cannot recommend highly enough the book Studies on the Early Papacy by Dom Chapman. The review by KBD sums it up nicely: Chapman truly considers all the possible evidence, while taking into account essential context such as

• how related it is to the subject at hand (papal authority/jurisdiction).
  
• how clear each piece of evidence is.
  
• how much evidence is available, and hence how certain we can be that the evidence we have gives the full picture.
  
  Using this approach, he gives a very thorough treatment of various Fathers' opinions on the papacy. More valuable, though, is the perspective which helps you evaluate the opinion of other Fathers to develop extremely defensible positions. It is extremely difficult to find someone giving such a balanced and thorough view as Chapman; in fact, I haven't found anything of similar quality on the topic of the early papacy. In my opinion, this book is literally worth its weight in gold.

>"Most historians would agree on"?? Lol!

That's pretty much what the majority of critical historians believe, yes. Christian, Jewish, atheist, agnostic ...

Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium,
Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet,
The Historical Figure of Jesus are all very good books on the historical Jesus, easy accessible and mostly stick to the consensus of the historical community.

>What evidence is there for any of this outside of christian scripture? When topic like this arise there are always a few posters who don't seem to understand that a religion's own faith based holy books can't be used as evidence to support a religion's historical claims.

All written historical sources have some kind of bias. Historians are well aware of that. The job of the historian isn't to take everything written in the gospels, or in any other source, at face value. They have to approach it critically so they could find out what really happened in the past.

Why Do Catholics Do That? is also a really great book for a ease-in to understanding various aspects of the faith. It's actually written for cradle Catholics (although I found it very helpful as a former Presbyterian), so it's one that might be great for you and your girlfriend to read together! Peace, brother!

There's nothing in the Bible telling us to persecute homosexuals, simply that homosexual sex/marriage is unacceptable because it is not how God designed marriage. To Christians, marriage and sex is symbolic of the Trinity. Just like the strength of the Father and the Son's love for each other made a new person, the Holy Spirit, so also can the love of a married couple result in a child.

I'm not saying that homosexual sex is ONLY lust. Certainly a homosexual couple could have sex out of committed love (and many probably do). That's an important part of sex: committed love. However, it's also important that sex within marriage can create new life (as an analogy to the Trinity). Since homosexual sex can't, then a homosexual couple cannot be married or be sexual partners under Christian teaching.

It's certainly not the answer popular culture would prefer, but that's what we believe and why we believe it.

Edit: Here is a good book on the subject, complete with references to the Bible.

Looking around for syllabus from this class. Guess I never saved it. There are many good ones out there. And it really depends on what angle you would like to approach it from.

As far as places to start with. It probably would help to start with secondary sources:

A former Professor and friend has written this biography on Luther: https://www.amazon.com/Luther-Christian-Life-Cross-Freedom/dp/143352502X

His approach is generally very balanced.

Diarmaid MacCulloch’s is the academic standard: https://www.amazon.com/Reformation-History-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/014303538X?keywords=the+reformation&qid=1537931698&sr=8-2&ref=mp_s_a_1_2

He is much more interested in the history than why it matters.

As far as checking out original sources, the big three are Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli. My personal hero is Calvin. I’ve read most of his works.

Oooooh, I'm actually not all that familiar with Early Modern Germany, but I think I've found a few books that may help you with the religious, political and military aspects. Some of these books are pretty expensive, so I'd recommend finding a good library or seeing if your local library does inter-library loans with larger libraries. Usually you have to read the books pretty quick, but it saves paying $150 for a book if you're not in a position to do that. Just be sure to take plenty of notes!

I'd also be willing to look at what you've got but, like I said, I may not be as useful as I first thought.

The Reformation: A History

The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy

The Rise of Modern Warfare: 1618-1815

The Witch-Hunt in Early Modern Europe

The Witchcraft Sourcebook

Germany and the Holy Roman Empire: Volume I

Society and Economy in Germany, 1300-1600

Flesh and Spirit: Private Life in Early Modern Germany

Panaceia's Daughters: Noblewomen as Healers in Early Modern Germany

Ecology, Economy and State Formation in Early Modern Germany

Crime and Culture in Early Modern Germany

The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the Right of Arms

He Is the Sun, She Is the Moon: Women in Early Modern Germany

The Realities of Witchcraft and Popular Magic in Early Modern Europe: Culture, Cognition and Everyday Life

The Lesser Key of Solomon

The Art of Combat: A German Martial Arts Treatise of 1570

I’m currently reading Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church and so far it has been excellent as an historical overview.

Someone here suggested the Catena app for phones and tablets. I downloaded it last night and i already love it. You can select a book of the Bible, and on any verse you can tap, and you will get early church fathers, saints, and theologians commentary on that specific verse. You can also create folders with different themes like Hope, charity, prayer etc etc, and save your favorite verses in them.

As far as bible studies, i have been reading the Didache Bible every day, and I purchased the Catholic Introduction to the Bible: The Old Testament but have only flipped through it briefly for now. It seems like it will be invaluable for when I am reading the Old Testament.

Two books that I can personally vouch for:

• Christianity: The First 3000 Years (warning: super long and super detailed). Covers Christianity on every corner of the globe. Great book.
  
  
• The Reformation (same author) - reading about the Reformation actually pushed me away from Protestantism. Weird...
  
  You may also enjoy the AskHistorians Book List
  
  

Hi. Your questions were exactly my questions, only 3+ years ago. I came from being raised in the Orthodox Church, and began to think about St. Peter's headship after listening to an Orthodox Podcast by Fr. Thomas Hopko.

What I will say is that there is an abundance of Grace available in both Churches. That being said, I eventually decided that I needed to be in communion with the See of Peter and so converted to Roman Catholicism.

You might want to check out this book. I read it, among many other things, though I'll have to dig out my stuff to see what else there was.

I spent time reading information about the Great Schism. As well, I became aware of the Photian Schism as well.

I'd ask you to consider the position of each Church with regard to the reception of the Eucharist by members of the opposite confession. I found that the Roman position was much more charitable toward what they consider their sister Church (or the other lung of the Church), as opposed to the Orthodox position which essentially considers Rome heretical, without outright saying so.

There is no question that Apostolic Succession resides in both Churches, so for me the Orthodox position comes off a bit "protestant" if you will. Thus, I have come to view them as the first Protestants.

I'll be glad to have more discussion with you if you come up with some questions you want to talk about.

If you want to really understand why the crusader mentality is being pushed, you have to read Tom Horn's and Cris Putnam's book, Petrus Romanus: The Final Pope is Here. These guys predicted Pope Benedict's resignation almost a year in advance even though a pope hadn't resigned in over 600 years before that, basing their prediction on multiple Catholic prophecies.

Petrus Romanus is supposed to be the FINAL Roman Emperor who gathers Christendom together for an epic battle against Islam, subduing it and the world for the sake of the faith. The authors take the position that even if the prophecy isn't true, there are people who want it to become true and take actions to make it self-fulfilling. All this Deus Vult! memeing is pretty perfectly timed to help draw the masses into supporting a modern, 21st-century crusade.

Okay, first of all you are a 16yr old dude. Hormones are going crazy and whatnot. Almost every guy struggles with this when they are teenagers, despite what they may tell you. Don't give up on it, with work, it gets easier, especially as you get older. Do what the others recommend, go to confession, and develop a prayer life.

The problem, however, with Catholicism directed towards youth in general, is that no one tells you exactly why masturbation is a mortal sin, other than because the Catechism says so. But why has the church come to this conclusion?

The best thing you can do for yourself is read the Theology of the Body for Beginners. It is an introduction to the Catholic theology on sexuality and why we believe that masturbation is evil, and why we believe sex is reserved for marriage etc.

Understanding the why is equally important to prayer and confession. When I was 17, I read it. It blew my mind. It helps you make sense of the changes your body is going through and their intended purpose. It gives you a greater reason to respect your sexuality and the sexuality of others.

Buy the book, read it, reflect on it, pray about it, go to confession, and take it one day at a time.

Good luck and God Bless

Christopher West’s book “Theology of the Body for Beginners” is an excellent place to begin to piece together the Catholic Church’s teachings on homosexuality. In the book, he describes the creation of man in Genesis as a sort of divine analogy of the Holy Trinity. In the Trinity, the love between the Father and Son is so real, so tangible (if you will) that a third being exists—the Holy Spirit. Similarly, we were created in “the image and likeness of God.” When a husband and wife come together in the marital embrace (sex), the love between them is so real, and so tangible that a third being can be created (a baby)!

As other posters have mentioned, this is why sex is intended for marriage (between a man and a woman) and for the purpose of procreation AND unification (aka fun!).

With this view in mind, one can see where a violation of this intent (by homosexual or heterosexual means) is a “slap in the face” to Creation as God intended.

I intend this response with nothing but Charity and will pray for you. I will respond to this with a link to West’s book, a phenomenal read for any Christian!

Link to the book! Theology of the Body for Beginners: A Basic Introduction to Pope John Paul II's Sexual Revolution, Revised Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/1934217859/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_MwQiDbWKNXXVG

You deny the Primacy of Peter, that's fine. However, I'll stick to the apostolic tradition as recognized by both Catholics and Orthodox. If you agree with the opinion of our Orthodox brethren, that the Pope's function is merely honorary (first among equals), okay. If you want to delve into the Catholic Church's argument that Peter's Primacy is not merely honorific, but rather has jurisdiction over all churches, read the books I have quoted (here, here and here). They treat the subject with far more propriety than a layman like me. God bless you.

This book I found was pretty good in summing up the political and social climate of Jesus http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-P-Sanders/dp/0140144994

Can someone say why this was downvoted, it seemed like a good book, the Straight Dope used (which is where I heard of it from) is the guy like a Nazi or something?

Hello happybadger,

I'm not a historical Jesus scholar, but you might find the following stuff useful:

Summary of some scholarship with suggested readings here.

Long video documentary from Frontline, 'From Jesus to Christ' here

I've read 'The Historical Figure of Jesus' by E.P. Sanders (listed in the summary above), but wasn't very pleased with it--mainly due to the problem with such scholarship pointed out by Luke Timothy Johnson and summarized by William Lane Craig here. Others reading in this vein like Geza Vermes' work.

You might also reread the canonical gospels and Acts with an outsider's perspective. As these are your most reliable source materials, any books or videos you study from will be constantly referencing them. In fact, that's probably the best place to start.

I hope that something there proves useful in your research.

EP Sanders is good. Very well respected and honest. His book, The Historical Figure of Jesus is a good read.

Don't forget Josephus.

The Christ myth theory is a joke in academia. I'm inclined to have more faith in people who spend a good chunk of their lives looking through the evidence than people who have an ideological motive to claim he never existed coughSamHarriscough.

If you genuinely want to investigate arguments for his existence I recommend The Historical Figure of Jesus, written by a 'skeptic' and widely agreed to be the best starting point for any serious academic research on the subject.

Your questions are rather long and require lot of writing and knowledge. Rather too much for Internet forum.

I wish I had a chance to talk to you in private because I do not think that writing long text would be effective. And frankly I do not have will to do it for such complex topic. But I am going to recommend two books.

The Primitive Church and the See of Peter by Luke Rivington.
https://archive.org/details/primitivechurch00rivigoog

Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546

I am also going to page /u/gregoiredenarek since he is our most active and most knowledgable redditor.

A fellow redditor recommended [Why Do Catholics Do That](Why Do Catholics Do That?: A Guide to the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church https://www.amazon.com/dp/0345397266/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_reiMzbDN8BE2K) a few years ago during an /r/Christianity denominational AMA. It's a great resource for people like me who grew up learning why Catholics were unbiblical (and un-Christian), but wanted an accessible resource from a Catholic source to learn more about them. After reading and having a better understanding of Catholicism, I highly recommend it.

If you want an actual Orthodox point of view on this, instead of a Catholic view of the Orthodox view, read The Primacy of Peter. It contains the referenced article by Fr. Nicholas Afanassieff. Further reading might include You are Peter, by Olivier Clement, and Eucharist, Bishop, Church by Metropolitan John Zizoulas.

There's also the excellent His Broken Body by Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck, which should basically be required reading for anyone remotely interested in the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.

There's also Primacy in the Church (Volume 1), which will be coming out on Jan 31st. It contains the essay often recommended by /u/LeonceDeByzance, The Meaning and Exercise of “Primacies of Honor” in the Early Church by Fr. Brian Daley, SJ, which I haven't had access to until now, and am quite interested to read. The rest of this anthology looks similarly excellent.

I definitely recommend Fortescue’s The Early Papacy for a great overview of the Catholic position on the Papacy and its support from the Fathers, etc.

Off the top of my head, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Also,
How the Irish Saved Civilization is a great read, though not about Rome.
If you're into church history, The Early Church by Chadwick and The Reformation by Macchulloch are well-written and interesting

grabgoygunz: ^^original ^^reddit ^^link

Some great coverage of the subject via religious podcasts.

As well as: April 2012's

Petrus Romanus The Final Pope Is Here by Thomas Horn, Cris D. Putnam

& April 2013's

Exo-Vaticana: Petrus Romanus, Project LUCIFER & the Vatican's Astonishing Exo-Theological Plan

> In Exo-Vaticana, internationally acclaimed authors Thomas Horn and Cris Putnam share their newest investigative research into what you can expect to unfold in the coming days, and, more importantly, what you can do to be prepared for the arrival of an alien savior and the kingdom of Antichrist.

They didn't miss. Ex Cathedra isn't some magic phrase where you can say "I declare Ex Cathedra!" (Much like Michael Scott declaring Bankruptcy in the office). Ex Cathedra is more or less the rubric in which a statement can be declared infallible.

Considering that during the 1800s many people challenged the role of the Pope once again, and it seems as though the early church believed a lot of the same things that Vatican I said about the Pope (I have a great book recommendation for the early church and the Pope, it is The Early Papacy - By Adrian Fortescue). Consider that these councils tend to happen not as a way of saying "Here is a new belief" but "Here is a belief that most people have always believed but now people are challenging it, so we're gonna come confirm it real quick and make all of our beliefs on it super clear."

So until then the rules for papal infallibility may not have been strictly defined, and since it was historically not needing such a definition people may have been less concerned about it, but appeared to follow the dogma albeit not in a developed way.

The First Thousand Years: A Global History of Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300198388/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_pYBQzb8XFH7CR

Wilken does a superb job at engaging the growth of Christianity with an eye to historical context and play of unity and diversity within the early churches. Eminently readable.

You are certainly free to attend the church! You could even talk to the presiding priest/pastor (if he's there) after Mass. If the church has a website, you could see who is in charge of something worded like "Adult Formation" or "Rite of Christian Imitation for Adults" and ask about feeling drawn to attend.

If you're super confused I cannot recommend this book enough.

This is a very good video on the St Malachi prophecy of the popes and anti popes. It's very enlightening!
https://youtu.be/sLaSMLSgEmQ

Petrus Romanus
I've read this and it's a great book with the history of these popes mentioned in the prophecies.
https://www.amazon.com/Petrus-Romanus-Final-Pope-Here/dp/0984825614

For your own edification and sheer joy, read Triumph! by H W Crocker. How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Tom Woods is excellent too.

Except there are better ones out there.

When I say Aslan's scholarship isn't there, the issue is he uses flawed scholarship and presents it as fact. Some of this scholarship has actively been discredited, others are widely criticized for methodological issues (using circular logic to back up their conclusions), and is very contentious on some fundamental problems. Aslan makes a lot of claims as if they're truth but which cannot be proven because we lack the evidence to make such conclusions.

I'll be upfront on my bias here: Aslan relies on 19th century German scholarship and the Jesus Seminar and I simply think these sources of the historical Jesus are not sound. I contend that the streams of scholarship he relies upon tends to present speculation as fact (and a lot of the speculation has been treated as fact). The Jesus Seminar in particular is roundly criticized for using circular logic to make conclusions. I think these critiques are fair and do suggest that the conclusions of the wider Jesus Seminar should be handled as suspect. I believe archeological evidence disproves assumptions made by the Jesus Seminar when it comes to aging texts. This matters because the Jesus Seminar went through texts and voted on each one's authenticity based on their unproven assumptions -- deeming passages inauthentic (and thus later additions) based on criteria that were unproven and perhaps even disproven.

Aslan is a bad starting point because he uses questionable scholarship, doesn't question it, and then presents this "historical" portrait of Jesus based on his reading of this scholarship. Scholarship which archeological evidence actively contradicts at times.

I haven't read this book, but I've read some of his articles, and E.P. Sanders is commonly seen as a good starting point who makes good use of archeological evidence to draw conclusions.

N.T. Wright and Marcus Borg co-author a book which goes through various aspects of the search for the historical Jesus. Wright and Borg are friends (and I think went to school together? They both had the same mentor, anyhow) but have very different views. Wright is highly critical of the Jesus Seminar, Borg was part of the Jesus Seminar but is also a bit of an outlier due to his more mystical understanding.

The point is that there's much better starting points. I think any of the links I've provided are good ones. But Aslan simply because if Aslan is your jumping off point, you're mostly going to get scholarship that he agreed with to make his point.

I enjoyed Triumph: The Power and Glory of the Catholic Church, a super-condensed overview of Western history. It's solid enough, if you can get over the somewhat-- heh-- triumphalist tone it affects sometimes.

Ironically enough, one of my critical impressions was that the ending was a little too defeatist.

I'm sorry! I don't know where they are, though. If I find your ears I'll send them back ASAP. :)

I would recommend this book as a good read.

I recommend Why Do Catholics Do That?, Catholic.com, Catholic.com's YouTube Channel, and especially CatholicBridge.com which is geared toward Protestants who are interested in the Catholic faith.

If you don’t mind tin foil hats, you may want to peek at this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Exo-Vaticana-Romanus-Vaticans-astonishing-exo-theological/dp/0984825630

Me personally I think either we are alone or, if there is someone else on another planet someplace, we will never meet them. Let me put it this way. Just based on statistics, the universe is so big odds are we are not alone. But likewise the universe is so big odds are we will never meet.

When it comes to modern UFO sightings, I tend to agree with John Keel. (Check out Operation Trojan Horse) They are not ETs but EDs… extra-dimensional beings, potentially demonic for that reason. This is supported by some Christians like Chuck Missler.

Edit: OTH was an old book I knew of but never read. I just found out it has been rereleased!

http://www.amazon.com/OPERATION-TROJAN-HORSE-Breakthrough-ebook/dp/B00CYOW6ZW/

We're right on the Pope being the Pope and head of Christ's Church on earth. Even the Orthodox will agree that he's the patriarch of the Western Church, and so Latins should follow him.

But we may actually be not as right about other aspects; part of the problem with discussing things like the Filioque is that the Latin tradition has a very strong emphasis on theology and philosophy, whereas the Eastern tradition is very strongly mystical and mystery - so discussions are not easy because the very language used to describe the question is so different. This is where lots of the dialogue is happening, in working out what we each are saying so that the other can understand. This is also why the Catholic Church doesn't require the Filioque of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

For a detailed discussion, you may want to read The Russian Church and the Papacy.

There's much more evidence of mushrooms being connected to ancient spiritual practices the world over than MJ. (That said obviously in some cultures like ancient India MJ was a huge part of it.)

Ancient Egypt, Aztec Civilization and Christianity are all steeped in mushrooms. (Along with MANY others. Of course, Santa Clause is also mushroom based :) https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/opinion/santa-christmas-mushrooms.html )

https://www.samwoolfe.com/2013/04/the-sacred-mushroom-and-cross-by-john.html

http://en.psilosophy.info/the_entheomycological_origin_of_egyptian_crowns_and_the_esoteric_underpinnings_of_egyptian_religion.html

https://www.amazon.com/Holy-Mushroom-Evidence-Mushrooms-Judeo-Christianity/dp/0982556209

https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Gospels-History-Hallucinogens-Christianity/dp/1620555026/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=S850R5K6NZ18DKSJSHN8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec_use_of_entheogens

If you feel like reading through the issues, Orthodoxy and the Roman Papacy: Ut Unum Sint and the Prospects of East-West Unity is a good book to check out.

Brant Pitre has got you covered, check out The "Brothers" of Jesus: A Fresh Look at the Evidence. He also goes into this in Chapter 5 of his great book, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary: Unveiling the Mother of the Messiah.

Yes this exists
By Frs John Trigilio Jr. and Kenneth Brighenti

Bought it for my wife who is a cradle Catholic but never really read much about the church and was a bit of a cultural Catholic. She has really enjoyed it.

Also Why Do Catholics Do That?: A Guide to the Teachings and Practices of the Catholic Church

by Kevin Orlin Johnson

Ever since Benedict stepped down and Francis was elected thanks to the prophecy of St. Malachy WIKI HERE

They've been calling him "Petrus Romanus". Here's a fun little book for you to read

EDIT: I guess since Im getting downvoted that I should say Im a Catholic convert and dont believe in any of this.

I took a sort of Christian survey course in college and I remember A Concise History of the Catholic Church to be pretty informative and easy to read, at least compared to some of the other books we had to purchase.

Nearly a 500 page colossus of information, presented academically. Not popular with the masses but maybe for you. I converted to Catholicism and this book played a large part, since I loved Orthodoxy (Oriental) more.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Peter-Keys-Scriptural-Handbook/dp/1882972546/ref=pd_sim_b_22?ie=UTF8&refRID=00D8Q477G181HWVT9B24

Free resources you should check out:

Peter and the Eastern Church by Fr. Ray Ryland

Infallability (especially the section titled 'The Pope')

Why I Didn't Convert to Eastern Orthodoxy by Fr. Brian Harrison O.S.

A Catholic (former Anglican) discusses Eastern Orthodox objections to Catholicism (there is a part 2 if you're interested)

 

Recommended books on the subject:

Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy

20 Answers- The Papacy (20 Answers Series from Catholic Answers Book 10)

Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church

Quite frankly, I don't know why this isn't more popular amongst more academically inclined Protestants/high Protestants/Catholics. Or perhaps it is, but I've only seen it mentioned here once, about a week ago. It's great if you're at a cross roads between Orthodoxy vs Catholicism, and contains a monolith if information and Early Church & biblical citations. It's between 300-400 pages, with I swear half of every page being footnotes. Not your typical bedtime read, I suppose.

http://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=0GMBK4GZ7EFQC9653N6X

You might want to check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234

The youtuber LizziesAnswers here stated how it really helped her decide between orthodoxy and the Catholic Church. Hopefully it might help you too!

You can find a lot of St Thomas Aquinas stuff online or different books. A quick Google search will bring you the information.

As for Theology of the Body, here are all 129 talks Pope John Paul II did for Theology of the Body.

JPII's Wednesday Audiences

If you want to delve even deeper into the talks there are plenty of books that go into it. Including Christopher West's Theology of the Body for Beginners. Hope that helps.

>No... It isn't.
>Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
>Pope in Italian Translation means "Father". Additionally, it is usual custom to address the priest as "father".

Please.

>Transubstantiation: Pagan practice of cannibalism disguised through Communion. There is no literal meaning or physical transformation of the bread and wine/juice. It is supposed to be figurative.

Your accusation of cannibalism is the same that Pliny the Younger made of the early Christians in the earliest known surviving pagan reference to Christianity. Whenever I hear this, I am reminded of the continuity of the Church's teachings and the misconceptions of her opponents.

>Papacy: Peter was never considered a Pope or even remotely close to anything like the Papal Senate. He was merely a figurehead during the early church. Decisions were made in consensus to Scripture. Not Papal vote.

Are you aware that "scripture" was not fully formed? There was no New Testament to refer to. What they had in addition to scripture was the sacred traditions of the Apostles and the authority of the Church. Try reading this book if you want to know what the historic papacy was like.

>Salvation: (John 1:12; 3:16,18,36; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10,13; Ephesians 2:8-9) Reading these segments, you would realize that rituals and practices does not guarantee salvation, but faith and faith alone. Works are the fruits of said salvation, but not a means to that salvation. Else the concept of Christ's death on Cross is moot. Catholicism is clinging to legalism... Not faith.

>Many of its practices, including idolizing Saints throughout history, just reminds me of Pagan Rome, when they worshiped and prayed to demi-gods and gods. It was a political gambit simply because of the fact that Christianity, the ORIGINAL Christianity, could not be stamped out by force. Thus, they adopted the practices of the original Christians, and then, because by then many of the Apostles were gone (because it was by now, A.D. 500) and therefore no one except a few isolated groups to oppose them... And thus they reigned as the supreme "Christian" entity. But then again, there was also Orthodox who also lay claim to original "Christianity" (when in reality its just a copy of Catholicism) and then the Coptic Christians of Egypt also lay claim to that same argument (though they ALSO are a copy of Catholicism).

Catholics do not idolize the Saints nor think that it is rituals that guarantee salvation. You seem to have severe misunderstandings of the Church. Try educating yourself before making such accusations.

Good catch lol

Reminds me of this book I've been wondering about for awhile:

https://www.amazon.com/Psychedelic-Gospels-History-Hallucinogens-Christianity/dp/1620555026/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1520971821&sr=8-1&keywords=psychedelic+origins+of+christianity

Off the top of my head, these should be helpful to you, though I'm certain there are others. These are scholarly works, which is what it sounds like you're looking for, though I would strongly suggest simply reading various Church Fathers, starting with the "Apostolic Fathers" collection, then becoming familiar with the Cappadocians. I cannot overemphasize how helpful and illuminating simply reading various Fathers is.

His Broken Body
and The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology

It's already been figured out and by Benedict no less. If you read the book "Orthodoxy & The Roman Papacy" the authors details Benedict's solution pretty well.

Why Stay Catholic is not a book about papal authority in the early Church. It sounds like this is the lone book on Catholicism you've read and you're trying to get as much out of it as possible.

Nevertheless, books you should check out:

Chapman, John. Studies on the Early Papacy

Fortescue, Adrian. The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451

Rivington, Luke. Roman Primacy, A.D. 430-451

Scott, S. Herbert. The Eastern Churches and the Papacy


You should also read the article by Brian Daley, SJ titled "Position and Patronage in the Early Church: The Original Meaning of 'Primacy of Honour'" The Journal of Theological Studies, NEW SERIES, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Oct. 1993): 529-553.


Let me know when you dig in and read these. I'm glad to discuss them.

Lol you sound like my family.

Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History https://www.amazon.com/dp/1599475367/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_bfhNBb5VJRK76

Eusebius: The Church History https://www.amazon.com/dp/082543307X/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_UfhNBb1P8XHR2

Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Modern Apologetics Library) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0898707234/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fghNBbFWXATPK

If you like to read, please check out

Upon this Rock This book is about the Papacy. & Crossing the Tiber, a Protestant conversion story, which includes a lot of Church history, and quotes from the early Church.

Currently in the middle of reading Fr. Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. It has been a good read so far on understanding the papacy in general.

I also got His Broken Body. I heard it gives a good understanding of the schism between East and West, albeit from an Orthodox perspective. Not exactly what you may be looking for, but may contribute as well.

A Catholic study bible?

Or, you know, inform them that even secular historians agree that the Catholic Church is the original Christian Church.

And here's one more suggestion:
https://www.amazon.com/Whose-Bible-Short-History-Scriptures/dp/0143036777

Edit: also
https://www.amazon.com/Concise-History-Catholic-Church-Revised/dp/0385516134

If you're going to read the Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II, its pretty intense. You may want to try Theology of the body for beginners by Christopher West first.

http://www.amazon.com/Theology-Body-Beginners-Christopher-West/dp/1932645349

I recommend reading The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Fr Fortesque. It is a fantastic historical account of how the papacy was regarded in the earliest years of the church, by accounts of those who lived in those times. The year 451 and the Synod of Chalcedon were chosen arbitrarily, due to the arguments of those he debated in the Anglican church who insisted that the church became corrupt after that synod and the papacy did not exist until after 451 AD. He proves very definitively that this is not the case. Give it a read!

I cannot speculate about this because I wasn't there with Jesus, to my knowledge, when all this was happening. I am, however, desperately curious to meet the being if it's at all possible, if for no other reason than just to say "thank you" in a more relaxed setting.

You may wish to check out the following books on what the final supper could have been:

The Psychedelic Gospels

The Effluents of Diety

Information stored through history is guaranteed to have been corrupted. It's possible that Jesus used bread and wine...but it's also possible that other widely-considered "forbidden fruit" was used for mind-expanding spiritual properties. I try to keep all possibilities in mind.

Not trying to sell anything, but I 100% recommend reading this book: https://www.amazon.com/First-Thousand-Years-History-Christianity/dp/0300198388 . Check it out at a library if you can, but once you read it you will see that the filioque, while an issue, is one of many that caused separation between the eastern and western Church (Rome and Constantinople). It’s a very complicated history.

That would depend a lot on what we mean by "Jewish tradition."

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/mary/main-marian-documents-of-the-church/perpetual-virginity-catechism-of-the-catholic-church

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/more-reasons-for-marys-perpetual-virginity

https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Jewish-Roots-Mary-Unveiling/dp/0525572732

Personally, I think one of the simplest and most convincing pieces of evidence for the fact that the authors of the gospels also believed in Mary's perpetual virginity is her response to the angel. "How can this be...?" Is not a question that makes much sense if it's a regular marriage which will be consummated.

OOOOH! MY TIME TO SHINE!

Ok, I'll calm down now. Check out Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy. It's about Papal supremacy until 451 AD, and its phenomenal. Additionally, anything by Vladmir Soloviev, but start [here] (https://www.amazon.com/Russian-Church-Papacy-Vladimir-Soloviev/dp/1888992298).

Some good books:

• Jesus, Peter & the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy
  
  
• Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church

A real good book with tons of resources on the primacy of Peter is called Upon this Rock.

I highly recommend The Historical Figure of Jesus by E.P. Sanders.

http://www.amazon.com/Historical-Figure-Jesus-E-Sanders/dp/0140144994/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256229581&sr=1-1

Sorry for the late reply.

Here's a good one - The Reformation by Diarmaid Macculloch

A good book to read initially on this subject would be Adrian Fortescue's The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon in 451. If you have access to a university library, Brian Daley, SJ, has an article on this in JTS from 1993 on the meaning of 'primacy of honor.' It shows that when the Council of Constantinople affirms the Roman Pontiff's "primacy", it was actually jurisdictional, not simply honorific.

In a nutshell, Puritanism was a radical strain of the Reformation that thought the English Reformation hadn't gone far enough to cleanse Christianity of its medieval and Roman elements.

A great accessible, but scholarly, book on the subject is Diarmaid MacCulloch's "The Reformation: A History."

Thomas Bokenkotter has a good, concise history of the Catholic Church that is readable, avoid too much technical jargon, and is written for those generally unfamiliar with the Church. I'd say he only gets squirrely about topics in the 20th century, probably because they were ongoing developments. You can look here at Amazon for it.

Jay Dyer is a Protestant turned Catholic turned Orthodox turned SSPX turned Orthodox... I've seen him on Twitter being called out on certain points by serious Catholics and he just blocks them, that is when he's not shitposting... not arguing in good faith.

Listen, you're going to need to read...

https://www.amazon.com/Early-Papacy-Synod-Chalcedon-451/dp/1586171763

https://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=057Q3P8G8BYR2CDNDPNV

https://www.amazon.com/Studies-Early-Papacy-John-Chapman/dp/1475044909

Check out Erick Ybarra's stuff too, he even has some long form interviews on Youtube Jay Dyer prefers to debate people he knows he can beat in live interviews...

https://erickybarra.org/2018/02/11/does-the-filioque-subordinate-the-holy-spirit-to-creation/

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'd recommend reading on the Reformation, specifically this book. It's long, but it covers the history of the Reformation, the Church's response to it, the (limited) role of Orthodoxy in it, and will give you an in depth look at the first Reformation beliefs.

Oh they already have the explanations planned. I am an ex-fundie, already people like Tom Horn are telling the fundies, that aliens are the Nephilim warned of in the bible and they are all demons. Others basically teach aliens will equal demons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vCC_NHuTuc

https://www.amazon.com/Exo-Vaticana-L-U-C-I-F-R-Vaticans-Astonishing/dp/0984825630

In addition to everything u/DionysiusExiguus I'd add The Russian Church and the Papacy by Vladimir Soloviev. It's written by an Orthodox Theologian and he concludes that there was primacy given to Rome in the early church, despite what many Orthodox historians claim.

The Reformation by Diarmaid MacCulloch. Regardless of his personal beliefs, he is a real historian and writes the most accessible and readable history books I've ever read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reformation:_A_History

For starters.

Read these:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Primacy-Peter-Essays-Ecclesiology/dp/0881411256

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565481895/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=1535523722&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0881411256&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0MJRMNA8C2ZTKSBS4W6T

>Where do I learn about all this stuff?

The Primacy of Peter: Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church

St. Symeon of Thessalonica and the Question of the Primacy of the Pope

There's also an "All-In-One" version that is a condensed version of this book and a few other ones from the "For Dummies" series (like "Catholic Mass For Dummies"). Are you familiar with it and how it compares to the full books?

The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East https://www.amazon.com/dp/0982556276/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_-z4EDbWFEQT1P

The Psychedelic Gospels: The Secret History of Hallucinogens in Christianity https://www.amazon.com/dp/1620555026/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_SA4EDb1CJH5WS

Astrotheology & Shamanism: Christianity's Pagan Roots. A Revolutionary Reinterpretation of the Evidence (Black & White Edition) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1439222428/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_bB4EDbW0ZGGTT

Sacred Knowledge: Psychedelics and Religious Experiences https://www.amazon.com/dp/0231174063/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_rC4EDbZ2RWDBS

DMT and the Soul of Prophecy: A New Science of Spiritual Revelation in the Hebrew Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594773424/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_tai_9C4EDb46EFXG4

❤️

I'll add A Concise History of the Catholic Church, I don't think it's perfect, but it's the only thing I can think of.

Perhaps we should add a good book on the schism to the suggested reading on the sidebar, such as His Broken Body or The Primacy of Peter.