I have not written any books, but I have read many. It is important to have a list of books that emphasize good, Traditional Catholicism, that is true to what the Church actually teaches. Here is a list of books that I think would be absolutely vital in reading and having in a Traditional Catholic’s library:
- “How to Converse Continually and Familiarly With God” by St. Alphonsus Liguori
- “True Devotion to Mary” by St Louis de Montfort
- “Heretics” by G.K. Chesterton
- “Orthodoxy” by G.K. Chesterton
- Catechism of the Council of Trent
- Baltimore Catechism
- Any Pre-Vatican 2 Encyclical
- Concise Catholic Dictionary of 1943
- “The Ways of Mental Prayer” by Rt. Rev. Dom Vitalis Lehodey
- “The Devotion to the Sacred Heart” by Fr. John Crosee S.J.
If there is a book on here you think should or shouldn’t be on here, feel free to leave me an email: jeff[at]trcthoughts[dot]com.
Why do you exclude the encyclicals from St. John XXIII onward? Is not Humanae Vitae is a continuation of Casti Connubii? Do not Laborem Exercens and Centesimus Annus expound on <Rerum Novarum?
Your opinion is any encyclical written by the last seven popes inclusive are not “true to what the Church actually teaches”. To me, this implies the men who have worn the Fisherman’s Shoes the past 55 years issued documents not in line with the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium. That could imply they were not authentic representatives of the Chair of St. Peter. That could imply an attitude one step short of sedevacantism.
Clarification of your thoughts erase my line of reasoning.
Many people in the Church today constantly site from everything from St. John XXIII until Francis. Almost as if there was nothing before those Popes. I am trying to encourage people to rediscover the truth and beauty of prior encyclicals.
Fair enough. And I happen to agree with that assessment.
It is an undeniable truth that many of the encyclicals written by the last 7 Popes have elements about them that are NOT in line with what the church actually teaches. For example in Humanae Vitae, Paul IV advocates Natural Family Planning as an acceptable alternative to contraception when before that Church doctrine has always held any attempt to thwart Gods plan for life to be completely unacceptable outside of mutually agreed upon abstinence. Another example is Pope Francis in Evangelii Gaudium No. 247 states, “We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked.” This text is an explicit profession of heresy, directly opposed to the solemn dogmatic (EX CATHEDRA) definition of Pope Eugenius III and the Ecumenical Council of Florence, and the doctrine taught by the supreme magisterium of Pope Benedict XIV in Ex Quo Primum, set forth repeatedly and explicitly citing the definition of Florence that the Mosaic covenant has been “revoked” and “abrogated”. There are also statements in the documents produced in Vatican II that speak directly in opposition to Catholic doctrine established in previous Church councils before it, even though Vatican II formally established no new doctrine and was strictly “Pastoral” as they liked to call it. These are just a few examples of many things that have been said and written and happened that go against the teachings and doctrines the Church has held for hundreds of years up until the last 7 Popes. Now, being aware of these facts DOES NOT MEAN that a sedevacantists view is at all correct and should be taken. The view that the Seat of St. Peter is vacant is definitely schismatic and wrong. It must be remembered that Popes are not at all infallible unless they are speaking EX CATHEDRA (if one doesn’t know what that means look it up) on the subject of Faith and Morals. Most of these encyclicals are in no part EX CATHEDRA declarations. We must all remember that Popes are flawed human beings just like you and I. The last 7 Popes have proved this more than any others. They are not always necessarily in line with the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium unless, as I stated, they are speaking EX CATHEDRA. With all this said it is safer to stick with the traditions, writings and teachings that were taught clearly and without confusion or compromise for hundreds of years before Vatican II and the last 7 Popes.
I’m sorry… in my reply I meant Paul VI not the IV.
one book I might add would be “Our Lady and the Church” by Fr. Hugo Rahner, and yes he’s the brother of Karl Rahner but is way more Orthodox and this book shows it. Also for those a bit more academic or not I recommend Fr. Nicholas Gihr’s book “The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: Dogmatically, Liturgically and Aesthetically explained.” haven’t finished it but it’s really good. Also, if you have any good recommendations for seminarians that would be greatly appreciated as I continue my studies. Traditional Catholicism makes more sense to me than any of this Ecumenical garbage that the Catholics seem to have gotten keen to.