Good Reading List To Learn Traditional Theology

[GiftOfGod]

One of the best books I found especially early on was simply a good Catholic Dictionary.  Fr. Hardon's Pocket Dictionary is great for quick reading, just snooping around and seeing what you can learn.  You might look up one word and then be curious about another one on the same page or so.  There are a couple of quibble's I have with Fr. Hardon nowadays but all in all it's a good book to use.

It was first published in 1985 and Hardon is a Jesuit. I wouldn't use that as toilet paper.

I agree with the above and also on this list: http://www.sedevacantist.com/books/  scroll down to almost the bottom, there is a book entitled: The Mystery of the Church by Humbert Clerissac. I have not read it yet, but it seems good and Mr. Lane thinks highly of it.

You may also be interested in this: http://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton-proof1.htm 

Though be warned about the rest of the second website. It is extremely Jansenistic.

Jansenistic? The website is of a "Pope Michael" type group but the Fenton pages are very good. Here's an archive of the page linked: https://web.archive.org/web/20070222064537/https://www.romancatholicism.org/fenton-proof1.htm

Here is a casual class you can take run by trad sisters.

http://catholicism.org/sai-free-class.html

Is that what the old link linked  to, what the Sisters taught from specifically? Or something else ?

This is the new link: https://www.saintaugustineinstitute.org/free-class Has anyone taken this four year program? It's is pricey.

[Gerard]

One of the best books I found especially early on was simply a good Catholic Dictionary.  Fr. Hardon's Pocket Dictionary is great for quick reading, just snooping around and seeing what you can learn.  You might look up one word and then be curious about another one on the same page or so.  There are a couple of quibble's I have with Fr. Hardon nowadays but all in all it's a good book to use.

It was first published in 1985 and Hardon is a Jesuit. I wouldn't use that as toilet paper.

Well, if those are your "reasons," you're an idiot and I would doubt your ability to properly use toilet paper.  Seriously, what smug, vacuous and inane criteria. 

[GiftOfGod]

It was first published in 1985 and Hardon is a Jesuit. I wouldn't use that as toilet paper.

Well, if those are your "reasons," you're an idiot and I would doubt your ability to properly use toilet paper.  Seriously, what smug, vacuous and inane criteria.

These early companions who were "staunch Lutherans" helped to form his religious thinking: "Years before the Ecumenical Movement I had come to respect and cherish Protestants."

Determined to foster this endeavor, Hardon began to study comparative religion. In oriental religions, he found "not only areas that were compatible with Christianity but also sections of thought that were clearly influenced in a direct manner by contact with the Christian message."

Continuing his outreach, his 1956 book Protestant Churches in America was met with critical acclaim even in Protestant circles. While still teaching full-time at West Baden, Hardon became a visiting professor of Catholic theology at several Protestant seminaries and colleges, including Bethany School of Theology, Lutheran School of Theology, and Seabury-Western Divinity School.

Upon his acceptance of a position at Seabury-Western Divinity school, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury sent a personal representative to mark "the first time in history an Anglican/Episcopalian seminary had appointed a teacher who was a member of the once hated and feared Society of Jesus." Hardon also served as an advisor to the Second Vatican Council in discussions on liturgy.

Between 1962 and 1967, Fr. Hardon taught Roman Catholicism and Comparative Religion at Western Michigan University. He released his book Religions of the World in 1963. By 1967 he returned to teaching Jesuit scholastics at two Jesuit theological schools in Illinois while working as a visiting professor at St. Paul University in Ottawa, where he taught furloughed missionaries classes in missiology. At this time he also began work for the Congregations for Religious and the Clergy in Rome to implement the renewal laid out in the documents of Vatican II.

Hardon had a close working relationship with Pope Paul VI, engaging in several initiatives at the Pope's request, including his authoring of The Catholic Catechism.

Father Hardon's The Catholic Catechism was a ground-breaking post-Vatican II work which brought modern Catholic teaching and faith into one book. At the time of his death, it had sold over 150,000 copies in hardback, and as a 623-page paperback had reached its 26th printing with over one million copies sold. It served as the official codified teaching of the Catholic Church until the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Hardon also served as a consultant for the drafting of that document.

Hardon kept to a demanding work schedule, especially while assisting the 1992 Catechism. Once daily demands for his advice as a local spiritual director lessened around five or six pm, he would write and organize material and continue to work into the night (morning in Rome). During these hours he often received phone calls concerning details of the Catechism from Cardinal Ratzinger, who valued his advice.

In early 2012, Peter Jamison in the San Francisco Weekly reported on documents concerning Hardon's fellow Jesuit Donald McGuire, who was arrested in 2005 and found guilty of sexually molesting boys. The article reported that years before the arrest, during a visit to Saint John Vianney, McGuire admitted to Hardon to taking showers with his alleged victim, asking the boy to massage his body, and allowing pornography in a shared room while traveling. McGuire denied additional allegations that he had touched the boy's genitals and watched him masturbate. Hardon was apparently satisfied, and wrote to Schaeffer, McGuire's superior:

Regarding showering, Fr. Don said that it was true, but the picture is not one of a lingering sensual experience. It was rather the picture of two firemen, responding to an emergency, one of whom was seriously handicapped and in need of support and care from the other. . . . Regarding the massages, Fr. Don said they were done with attention to modesty and were necessary to relieve spasm at the 4th-5th lumbar disc [above the buttocks] and the right leg, involving the sciatic nerve. . . . Regarding pornography Fr. Don said that there were Playboy and Penthouse magazines, which he neither got nor threw away. . . . I do not believe there was any conscious and deliberate sexual perversity. . . . I do believe Fr. McGuire was acting on principles which, though objectively defensible, were highly imprudent. . . . He should be prudently allowed to engage in priestly ministry.

According to the report, McGuire went on to abuse more children after returning to ministry.

The fact that Hardon was a Jesuit buddy-buddy with post-Vatican II popes should be enough information on its face for any good traditional Catholic to dismiss his work but his work is even more disturbing. If you don't think these are good reasons, then you sir, are the idiot. Or you're just a subversive Jesuit.

[christulsa]

Could this be our beloved Kreuzritter yet again using a Socket account?   The similarities are striking. 

[Gerard]

It was first published in 1985 and Hardon is a Jesuit. I wouldn't use that as toilet paper.

Well, if those are your "reasons," you're an idiot and I would doubt your ability to properly use toilet paper.  Seriously, what smug, vacuous and inane criteria.

These early companions who were "staunch Lutherans" helped to form his religious thinking: "Years before the Ecumenical Movement I had come to respect and cherish Protestants."

You are a deceptive, lying scumbag. 

Here's why:  I grabbed whole paragraph from Wikipedia that you deliberately snipped in order to decieve people.

For added income Hardon's mother took in two young Lutheran girls as boarders named Judith and Susan, who lived with them for at least eight years.[8][4] The three-year-old Hardon protested at having to abstain from meat on Friday while his boarder "sisters" could indulge. In response his mother asked the girls "My boy is growing up: he's asking embarrassing questions. Would you mind either abstaining from eating meat on Friday or find yourselves somewhere else to board?" The girls choose to join the fast with permission from their minister. These early companions who were "staunch Lutherans" helped to form his religious thinking: "Years before the Ecumenical Movement I had come to respect and cherish Protestants."[8]

Your first example did a complete face plant.  Should I waste my time unpacking the rest of your lies?   

Here's the kicker:  You didn't even have one citation from the Catholic Dictionary that I cited as a useful source for someone just starting to explore the faith.  That's just more proof of your utter idiocy and desire to be nothing but a lying trouble maker.   

Here's one:

CALUMNY. Injuring another person's good name by lying. It is doubly sinful, in unjustly depriving another of his good name and in telling an untruth. Since calumny violates justice, it involves the duty of making reparation for the foreseen injury inflicted. Hence the calumniator must try, not only to repair the harm done to another's good name, but also to make up for any foreseen temporal loss that resulted from the calumny, for example, loss of employment or customers. (Etym. Latin calumnia, a false accusation, malicious charge; from calvi, to deceive.)--Fr. John Hardon Modern Catholic Dictionary

The fact that Hardon was a Jesuit buddy-buddy with post-Vatican II popes should be enough information on its face for any good traditional Catholic to dismiss his work but his work is even more disturbing.

Right.  You have no "facts" you simply fabricate.  You know nothing of what constitutes a good Catholic. You know nothing of the times and people you think you are entitle to sin in judgment of.  You are definitionally giving off the vibe of a merciless, loveless, unjust  caricature of Catholicism.  That'll send you to Hell pretty directly if you don't deal with it.  Take that as a charitable warning. 

If you don't think these are good reasons, then you sir, are the idiot. Or you're just a subversive Jesuit.

Naturally you'd state that. Because anything that goes against your irrational solipsism must be labeled by you as a protection for your fragile little ego. You actually come off as anti-Catholic Protestants that I deal with on other "forums."   Forget the fact that you lied and gave no "reasons" in the proper sense, it's clear you are a nutcase.  Probably a Pedo-Freemason trying to subvert this forum.  (see? I can do hurl the assertions too.  

"Gift of God" a little narcissistic aren't you?  Has your therapist declared that you've crossed over into pure psychopathy yet?

[GiftOfGod]

These early companions who were "staunch Lutherans" helped to form his religious thinking: "Years before the Ecumenical Movement I had come to respect and cherish Protestants."

You are a deceptive, lying scumbag. 

Here's why:  I grabbed whole paragraph from Wikipedia that you deliberately snipped in order to decieve people.

For added income Hardon's mother took in two young Lutheran girls as boarders named Judith and Susan, who lived with them for at least eight years.[8][4] The three-year-old Hardon protested at having to abstain from meat on Friday while his boarder "sisters" could indulge. In response his mother asked the girls "My boy is growing up: he's asking embarrassing questions. Would you mind either abstaining from eating meat on Friday or find yourselves somewhere else to board?" The girls choose to join the fast with permission from their minister. These early companions who were "staunch Lutherans" helped to form his religious thinking: "Years before the Ecumenical Movement I had come to respect and cherish Protestants."[8]

Your first example did a complete face plant.  Should I waste my time unpacking the rest of your lies?   

How is it deceptive or a faceplant? You really think the context makes his praise of Protestants OK?

But please continue "unpacking" as I would be very interested in seeing your defense of his trailblazing employment at Protestant seminaries, being an advisor at the Second Vatican Council, and implementing the Second Vatican Council in Rome from the top-down. Don't forget to "unpack" his covering up for his pedophile Jesuit friend, which makes him morally responsible for his friend's subsequent pedophilic conduct. The fact that you are on a traditional Catholic forum and defend a guy who helped the Second Vatican Council cook up Sacrosanctum Concilium (which set the stage for the New Mass) is astounding. Sit back and reflect on the damage you have done to your soul and the souls of others by promoting this modernist's book.

By the way, it's ironic that you accuse me of calumny when I have provided almost a dozen examples of why Hardon was in the very least flirting with heresy. Yet you yourself calumny me by saying that I'm narcissistic, that I have a therapist, and asking rhetorically if I have "crossed over into pure psychopathy yet". Same with you saying that I am "probably a Pedo-Freemason". That's an interesting thing to accuse me of, considering that I am condemning "Fr." James "friend-of-pedos" Hardon for designing and implementing the Masonic Second Vatican Council's constitution on liturgy. Take a look in the mirror...if you dare.

[Gerard]

How is it deceptive or a faceplant? You really think the context makes his praise of Protestants OK?

It's good enough for Jesus.  When the Apostles told him others were casting out demons in His name and they told them to stop, Jesus rebuked the intolerance.  You are required by God to love Protestants.  You can reject Protestantism and still love Protestants.  Protestants adopting Catholic traditions is a good thing, the more they adopt the closer they are to converting. 
Lots of good Protestants become good Catholics.  Lots of bad Catholics become good Catholics as well. 

But please continue "unpacking" as I would be very interested in seeing your defense of....

...blah...blah..blah... I'm not jumping through hoops for you. 

Simply put, you can't find anything wrong with the Hardon Catholic Dictionary.  So, you want to go on a Witch Hunt because probably that's what you think Catholicism is.  You really are more of a Puritan than a Catholic. 

By the way, it's ironic that you accuse me of calumny when I have provided almost a dozen examples of why Hardon was in the very least flirting with heresy.

Flirting with heresy is not a "thing."  I'm accusing you of calumny because that's what you did.  You can't justify your first example because it was so distorted and slanted and intentionally trying to decieve. 

Yet you yourself calumny me by saying that I'm narcissistic, that I have a therapist, and asking rhetorically if I have "crossed over into pure psychopathy yet". Same with you saying that I am "probably a Pedo-Freemason".

You can or anyone else tell that what I posted was tongue in cheek and demonstrating your own absurd claims with a tit for tat.  So, are you now admitting that you engaged in calumny? 

That's an interesting thing to accuse me of, considering that I am condemning "Fr." James "friend-of-pedos" Hardon for designing and implementing the Masonic Second Vatican Council's constitution on liturgy. Take a look in the mirror...if you dare.

The quotes around "Fr." tell me that you're one of these Catholics that think God is out to screw you and everyone over with invalid preists because some imagined or extraneous rubric is necessary for validity or if a priest looked at someone cross-eyed or watched a football game he's "out of the Church!"  Oh and I can look in the mirror just fine. Middle -aged but still gifted with dashing, youthful looks. 

I remember getting into it with someone who was trashing Fr. Malachi Martin a few years back and they went on this hyperbolic tear about his involvement in Nostra Aetate.  This loser called it "an abomination" and claimed Fr. Martin was "instrumental" in it's promulgation with a litany of vague accusations about its effect.   So, I asked him what specifically in Nostra Aetate could he link directly to Fr. Martin and what specifically about it was "an abomination."  Funny that he couldn't answer that.  I tried and tried to get him to focus on specifics and he just didn't seem to want to do that.  It may have required some humility on his part and that was too high a price to pay for truth. 

So, I'll do the same in your case.  What specific ideas of Fr. Hardon's were adopted into Sacrosanctum Concillium that you can trace specifically back to him? 

Also, can you or can you not point to some critical flaws in the Hardon dictionary that make it worth less than toilet paper?  Better yet, have you ever even looked at it? 

I've got my copy.  Show me what's the big issue with it?  Here's your chance to save me from a perilous error.   

[christulsa]

Very well put Gerard.  I also have Hardon's dictionary on my book shelf.  I can spot it across the room, as I puff my cigar and sip on my Jim Beam.

It will be interesting to see if you get an intelligible answer, from The Gift.    It no doubt helped me, and countless other Catholics, learn the specific terminology of the Church's structures, theology, liturgy, etc.   Only Rigorism would reject this good priest's works.

[GiftOfGod]

The quotes around "Fr." tell me that you're one of these Catholics that think God is out to screw you and everyone over with invalid preists because some imagined or extraneous rubric is necessary for validity or if a priest looked at someone cross-eyed or watched a football game he's "out of the Church!" 

I'm a sedevacantist, so if I can believe that Paul VI is really just plain-old Giovanni Montini, then the same applies to a priest.

I've got my copy.  Show me what's the big issue with it?  Here's your chance to save me from a perilous error.

I have no inclination to read something that isn't fit to wipe my butt with.

Very well put Gerard.  I also have Hardon's dictionary on my book shelf.  I can spot it across the room, as I puff my cigar and sip on my Jim Beam.

At least you know where there is a spare ashtray in your house.

It no doubt helped me, and countless other Catholics, learn the specific terminology of the Church's structures, theology, liturgy, etc.   Only Rigorism would reject this good priest's works.

Oh yeah, it's Rigorist to not want to read about the NewChurch's "Liturgy", theology, and structures.

[christulsa]

The quotes around "Fr." tell me that you're one of these Catholics that think God is out to screw you and everyone over with invalid preists because some imagined or extraneous rubric is necessary for validity or if a priest looked at someone cross-eyed or watched a football game he's "out of the Church!" 

I'm a sedevacantist, so if I can believe that Paul VI is really just plain-old Giovanni Montini, then the same applies to a priest.

Expressing doubts about the validity if VII popes and priests is reserved for the SV forum.  Something tells me you really don't care about that Rule, sir.  Or the people here.

I've got my copy.  Show me what's the big issue with it?  Here's your chance to save me from a perilous error.

I have no inclination to read something that isn't fit to wipe my butt with.

[/quote]

Even this disdain for VII priests is not permitted in the SV subforum, or becoming of a Catholic in possession of himself.   Even St. John Cardinal Newmann, once a schismatic, doubtfully valid Anglican priest, was respected for his holiness and defense of the Faith, before his official conversion

Very well put Gerard.  I also have Hardon's dictionary on my book shelf.  I can spot it across the room, as I puff my cigar and sip on my Jim Beam.

At least you know where there is a spare ashtray in your house.

It no doubt helped me, and countless other Catholics, learn the specific terminology of the Church's structures, theology, liturgy, etc.   Only Rigorism would reject this good priest's works.

Oh yeah, it's Rigorist to not want to read about the NewChurch's "Liturgy", theology, and structures.
[/quote]

You do come across as a Rigorist, yes.

[GiftOfGod]

Even this disdain for VII priests is not permitted in the SV subforum, or becoming of a Catholic in possession of himself.   Even St. John Cardinal Newmann, once a schismatic, doubtfully valid Anglican priest, was respected for his holiness and defense of the Faith, before his official conversion

Oh please. St. Newmann didn't assist at forming the Vatican II's constitution on liturgy (which paved the way for the New Mass) and assist in implementing the Second Vatican Council from Rome. Comparing a saint to this heretic/pedo enabler is like comparing apples to oranges.

[Gerard]

Very well put Gerard.  I also have Hardon's dictionary on my book shelf.  I can spot it across the room, as I puff my cigar and sip on my Jim Beam.

Oh man...I long for a day like that again.  (Been a caregiver, going on a decade now. )

It will be interesting to see if you get an intelligible answer, from The Gift.    It no doubt helped me, and countless other Catholics, learn the specific terminology of the Church's structures, theology, liturgy, etc.   Only Rigorism would reject this good priest's works.

There's a ruthlessness and mercilessness, a kind of bitterness that infects many people like this.  They stop looking for the truth and focus only on hunting down even if they have to invent it, change punctuation or simply smear someone because they didn't agree with everything the attacker believes in. 

[Gerard]

The quotes around "Fr." tell me that you're one of these Catholics that think God is out to screw you and everyone over with invalid preists because some imagined or extraneous rubric is necessary for validity or if a priest looked at someone cross-eyed or watched a football game he's "out of the Church!" 

I'm a sedevacantist, so if I can believe that Paul VI is really just plain-old Giovanni Montini, then the same applies to a priest.

You will obviously believe anything based on nothing.  I wonder how much Catholic doctrine you invent out of thin air or what theological speculations you view as infallible dogma? 

I've got my copy.  Show me what's the big issue with it?  Here's your chance to save me from a perilous error.

I have no inclination to read something that isn't fit to wipe my butt with.

So....you're ignorant.  That's what you're stating.  If you won't even wipe yourself with it, why are you bothering to comment on it?  Unless.... is wiping your butt with something the first step in familiarizing yourself with something?  Wipe your butt with it?  Then, step 2 is what?  Do you just hold it for a while?  At what point does something become worthy of you reading it? 

At what point does your irrational hatred give way to reason? 

Very well put Gerard.  I also have Hardon's dictionary on my book shelf.  I can spot it across the room, as I puff my cigar and sip on my Jim Beam.

At least you know where there is a spare ashtray in your house.

And we all know what books are for in your house. 

It no doubt helped me, and countless other Catholics, learn the specific terminology of the Church's structures, theology, liturgy, etc.   Only Rigorism would reject this good priest's works.

Oh yeah, it's Rigorist to not want to read about the NewChurch's "Liturgy", theology, and structures.

Someone just starting out will benefit greatly in the definitions of the Eastern Rites when they learn there are more liturgies and rites than just their local parish and they would also notice in the definition of "Latin" that their local parish and school never did teach them the Latin that was ordered by Vatican II. 

But you don't know what's in it or not in it since you refuse to read it with some level of scorn that is totally disproportionate.  I would bet, you've probably got some spiritual oppression going on and something in that book or Hardon's other works contains something the demon doesn't want you to learn. 

[GiftOfGod]

I'm a sedevacantist, so if I can believe that Paul VI is really just plain-old Giovanni Montini, then the same applies to a priest.

You will obviously believe anything based on nothing.  I wonder how much Catholic doctrine you invent out of thin air or what theological speculations you view as infallible dogma? 

Do you really want me to bring out the dogma proving sedevacantism?

Very well put Gerard.  I also have Hardon's dictionary on my book shelf.  I can spot it across the room, as I puff my cigar and sip on my Jim Beam.

At least you know where there is a spare ashtray in your house.

And we all know what books are for in your house. 

I also use crap books as drink coasters

Someone just starting out will benefit greatly in the definitions of the Eastern Rites when they learn there are more liturgies and rites than just their local parish and they would also notice in the definition of "Latin" that their local parish and school never did teach them the Latin that was ordered by Vatican II. 

But you don't know what's in it or not in it since you refuse to read it with some level of scorn that is totally disproportionate.  I would bet, you've probably got some spiritual oppression going on and something in that book or Hardon's other works contains something the demon doesn't want you to learn.

Catholics aren't supposed to change rites without good reason, so that curiosity about other rites serves no purpose. IDGAD about what was "ordered" by Vatican II. It was a false and heretical/apostate council promulgated by a sodomite antipope. Obviously you haven't realized that yet (or you have and you are of bad will).

[Gerard]

Do you really want me to bring out the dogma proving sedevacantism?

No. I only want to correct you on the topic at hand.  Whatever you pull out is going to show that you are a Neo-Ultramontanist with an inflated view of papal charisms. 

And we all know what books are for in your house. 

I also use crap books as drink coasters

Ah!  Probably too much.  Drunk posting. 

Someone just starting out will benefit greatly in the definitions of the Eastern Rites when they learn there are more liturgies and rites than just their local parish and they would also notice in the definition of "Latin" that their local parish and school never did teach them the Latin that was ordered by Vatican II. 

But you don't know what's in it or not in it since you refuse to read it with some level of scorn that is totally disproportionate.  I would bet, you've probably got some spiritual oppression going on and something in that book or Hardon's other works contains something the demon doesn't want you to learn.

Catholics aren't supposed to change rites without good reason, so that curiosity about other rites serves no purpose.

I didn't write anything about Catholics changing rites.  I pointed out that many Catholics have no knowledge of them.  I remember before I knew about them, I was struck by the Orthodox liturgy.  And then I found out how much it had in common with the TLM. After that, I wanted to learn more about the TLM.   

And if one liturgy strengthens your faith dramatically more than another, that's as good a reason as any to change rites. 

IDGAD about what was "ordered" by Vatican II.  It was a false and heretical/apostate council promulgated by a sodomite antipope. Obviously you haven't realized that yet (or you have and you are of bad will).

You're ignorant and deliberately so.  Whether you are wrong or right is of no relevanct to you and you want to spread that ignorance.  What's your game, really?  You contribute nothing of value because you can't back up your half-baked and false claims.  You really must have a demonic oppression at work on you.  I'll say some Aves for you. 

You: " I haven't read that book, but I'm going to tell you all about it and to stay away from it."   

Anything else you don't care about and know nothing of that you want to lecture about?