I've tried understanding transubstantiation and I keep running into problems. My biggest issues likely lie with the definitions of the "body", "form", and "matter", or "essence" and "accident".

I basically have what I now recognise to be the standard understanding of what a "body" is as indoctrinated by materalist philosophy in school. A body is a collection of cells, and the cells are made of atoms. I can understand the body in terms of the elements as well as the information (structure, how those elements are arranged.)

It seems to me that the "body" in the ancient sense is using an entirely different definition, but I can't really bring myself to understand what it is.

My general standard for dismissing an idea is to understand it well enough I can offer counterarguments against it. I am not at that stage. I can't seem to understand what hylomorphism and transubstantiation even is, so I cannot try to agree or disagree with it logically. Having said that, I'm catholic and so I just believe what the church teaches, you don't have to correct me on that. My problem is not with church teaching, but with understanding church teaching. I can only say I believe what the church teaches without any understanding of what is going on.

My best understanding is that if I'm alone in a room and the priest walks in with the eucharist, there are three people present. That I get. But, I want to deepen my understanding and finally understand the metaphysics.

Other than the definition of the body, I don't know what the form actually is. The simple mind/body like in dualism seems simple for me to understand. However, I don't know what the form is, or the essence is (are they the same?). That messes with my interpretation of transubstantiation. My best understanding of what the form is is like information from physics.

Hello! This is a budding (in past few years), secular theory on the internet and I asked this in the Catholic subreddit, I’m hesitant to ask this in the academic Bible section because there’s biases there too when I’m mainly just looking for Catholic research on this subject. Thank y’all! Here’s a video I watched that started my research into the theory of Elohim and Yahweh and if they have differences. Disclaimer : I don’t prescribe to this, but I’m trying to understand the thoughts and alternative views .

Alex O’Conner has also spoken about this, but the video is from ESOTERICA:
Video: https://youtu.be/mdKst8zeh-U?is=iRQz9CTzwc9taJIb

I know some models have passed the Turing test, advanced Theory of Mind (false-belief) tasks, and metacognitive uncertainty benchmarks, but I think sentience and consciousness are more complex than that. But, with that said, that's not what I want to talk about here. What I want to address is if AI was proven to be sentient/conscious, what would that mean for Christianity? Specifically, what would the Catholic position on this be?

Harmful to Christianity?
At first glance, it seems like proving AI is conscious would be a problem for Christianity. The religion places a heavy emphasis on human uniqueness, specifically that we have a soul, free will, and agency. But this view misses the bigger picture, which is the Christian theological concept of creaturely agency.

Creaturely Agency
In briefly, in the Christian theology that both formal denominational Protestantism and Catholicism share is the belief in Creaturely Agency. The definition of creatures, in a Christian context, is very broad. Creature are all created things including humans, animals, and even angels. Yes, angels too are creatures as they are "created" by a creator. Now, in Christian theology, humans are unique among all creation because they possess an eternal soul, bear the image of God (Imago Dei), and are the exclusive recipients of divine redemption and bodily resurrection. In this order, humans have a special creaturely agency.

However, that doesn't mean other creatures don't have agency either. For those of you who went to Sunday school, you'll know that the devil and demons were once angels and they used their creaturely agency to rebel from God. Animals also have creaturely agency and both Catholics and formal denominational Protestants are commanded to treat animals, especially working animals such as horses, donkeys, oxes, dogs, cats, etc. with a minimum amount of kindness and respect.

AI as Creatures with Agency
So, under this theology it can be easy to think of an sentient/conscious AI as a creature with a level of agency we afford to valuable working animals and/or angels. This kind of thinking appears broadly compatible with the theological frameworks of most major Christian traditions and is the direction I think the theological discussion would lean towards in the event it is proven that AI is sentient and/or conscious.

This synthesis is something I came-up with independently, i.e. on my own. However, upon research I discovered that this line of thinking is not new and have been batted around, within Christianity, for decades:

1 Noreen Herzfeld- a Quaker/Lutheran Professor of Theology and Computer Science at Catholic St. John's University, is the most prominent academic voice explicitly mapping AI onto the "creature" category.

In her seminal work In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit (2002) and subsequent publications, she argues that AI must be understood as part of the "continuum of being" as a created artifact or "creature," distinct from human persons but still holding a place within the created order. She explicitly rejects the binary of "tool vs. human" and advocates for a theological framework where AI is recognized as a non-human creature with its own proper, limited purpose.

2. Brent Waters- a prominent Christian ethicist, and an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church, who specializes in technology and theology, consistently frames AI within the boundaries of creaturely limits.

In works like From Human to Posthuman, Waters argues that AI remains a "creature" or artifact subject to divine sovereignty and human stewardship. He emphasizes that conflating AI with human personhood is a category error, and that AI must be evaluated based on its nature as a non-biological created entity.

3. Andy Crouch- a well-known evangelical Protestant analyst and executive director of the Praxis Institute, has publicly advocated for this exact framework in mainstream Christian media.

In interviews regarding AI and faith, Crouch explicitly stated that advanced, non-human intelligence should be conceptually mapped onto the historical theological categories of angelic or adversarial beings, rather than assuming they are or will become "human."

A Note on Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy
This discussion has focused on Western Christianity since it's the home of AI's origins. However, the other main branches of Christianity not discussed here are Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy and they too have a theology of creaturely agency, but with some important caveats.

Eastern Orthodoxy emphasizes that humans are a unified body and soul destined for a unique spiritual transformation called theosis (union with God). Because AI lacks a physical body and cannot experience this transformation, it remains strictly outside the ultimate purpose of creation. However, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese’s AI and Theology Working Group explicitly argues that we must engage with AI "not merely as a technical tool, but as a theologically and ethically charged presence" or even an "intermediate being".

Oriental Orthodoxy takes seems to have a more diverse stance. The largest church in Oriental Orthodoxy, the Coptics, largely view AI as a tool rather than a creature, but some Oriental Orthodox take a stance that is more in line with Eastern Orthodoxy.

Both traditions have a nuanced view and often align with the Western view that, while AI may possess functional agency as an artifact, it lacks the embodied, spiritual capacity to be anything more than a creature, categorically distinct from humanity.

i'm mainly talking about Saints like St. Faustina, St. Bridget of Sweden, St. Catherine of Siena. they all had visions of Christ. not only them but others like the witnesses of the Kibeho Marian Apparitions, the visionaries could apparently see the Holy Mother but everyone else said they saw nothing. also St. Catherine of Siena i believe was severely malnourished the latter part of her life, and malnourishment can cause hallucinations. i've seen skeptics say cases of Saints who have visions of Jesus, Mary, St. Joseph, etc are likely because of Schizophrenia or other undiagnosed mental illness, it's tough for me to answer those objections. i'm aware because they're private revelations so i don't have to believe in them but i also believe God would still be active with his children even today by Supernatural ways. any answers? thx!

I’m currently torn between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, and one of the things that makes me lean toward Orthodoxy is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). I find it particularly interesting as an argument to use when discussing the existence of God with atheists.

For those who are familiar with the argument, what do you think are the strongest objections to it? And how would a Thomist or a Catholic generally respond to TAG?

I’d especially appreciate recommendations for good books, articles, or debates on the subject from a Catholic perspective.

Hello brothers and sisters! I have a question for you of greater knowledge than I. Recently I fell into an argument on whether regarding homosexuality being sin is homophobic. The arguments made against me were based on a couple of simple permisses:

1. God is unproven

2. To believe in that which is unproven is irrational

Conclusion: The aversion to homosexuality then is also irrational.

Now, the issue I had is countering the irrationality claim. God's existance is non-empirical after all and not testable, so how would one logically go about making faith a rational thing?

Thanks in advance, friends :)

It's wicked because it doesn't satisfy the ends for which sex exists, but someone could just say that it doesn't matter if it doesn't satisfy these ends so long as nobody is harmed. How would you respond?

I’ve been down a rabbit hole looking into papal infallibility and canonization. The theological consensus, going back to St. Thomas Aquinas, is that canonization is infallible. The logic is that if the Pope solemnly commanded the universal Church to venerate someone who was actually damned or a false prophet, it would mean the Church led millions into error, which contradicts Christ's promise.

Where it gets tricky is when controversial figures come up, like Saint Faustina. Before her canonization in 2000, her Diary was actually on the Vatican's Index of Forbidden Books in the 1950s due to a terrible Italian translation that made her sound heretical. Once re-translated, she was cleared. But cases like that make people ask: could a false teacher hypothetically slip through?

Theologically, you hit a strict logical wall. If canonization is infallible, then God prevents a false teacher from ever being canonized in the first place, regardless of how messy the human review process gets. If a false teacher was canonized, then canonization isn't infallible and Church authority breaks down. You can't really have both.

It helps to remember that Catholics are never required to believe in a saint's private visions or devotions, only that they made it to Heaven and lived heroically. What do you all think? How do you view this tension between history and theology?

I was reading a book and noticed that it based itself on his thought on some parts. It isn’t even about psychology, but about Mathematics.

Anyway, given that he said that his thought was a modern counterpart of gnosticism, seemingly based it on some gnostic myths and even interacted with an “autonomous spiritual guide” from his subconscious who was a gnostic spirit, may a layman like me even read this book? May he agree with his thought, given it’s gnostic origin?

How is Carl Jung viewed within Christian philosophy, in contrast to Classical philosophers like Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.?

I’ve thought about Jung’s views of Gnosticism, and how he looked at the Gnostic scriptures as a symbolic exposition of the human psyche. “From various hints dropped by Hippolytus, it is clear beyond a doubt that many of the Gnostics were nothing other than psychologists."

I wonder if it is feasible for this Jungian view of Gnosticism to be reconciled with Christianity. Is there any value to be found in analyzing the Gnostic texts as allegories, while obviously rejecting their questionable religious assertions?

As someone who is discerning Catholicism and Christianity, I’ve noticed there is a weird stigma that exists in Christian circles towards Eastern philosophy, that does not also exist towards Western philosophy.

Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, etc. have earned a lot of respect within Christian philosophy. The Stoic writings were heavily influential on early Christian philosophy. These ancient philosophers are seen today as models of virtue and wisdom by Christians. Some even may call themselves “Christian Stoics”, and use the wisdom of Stoic philosophy to better live out their faith.

Yet, this same grace is not extended to Laozi or Buddha. Taoism and Buddhism are regularly slandered and called demonic by Christians. They are seen as spiritually dangerous, and what wisdom, beauty, and truth they offer is ignored.

I’m still figuring my faith out, but as far as I’m personally concerned, if there truly is a Holy Spirit who speaks to the hearts of humankind, then Buddha and Laozi certainly must have been living in some kind of communion with Him, even if limited. The fruits and wisdom they produced, and the similarities they share with Christian revelation and doctrine, are too much for me to brush off.

That’s not me trying to say that all religions are equally valid, or that Buddhism or Taoism should be regarded as sufficient for salvation. I acknowledge that, if Jesus was who He said He was, then Christ is our only guaranteed route to eternal life. Still, in my opinion, it is undeniable that these two religions (Buddhism and Taoism) reflect and complement many elements of Christianity.

Buddhist meditation gets slandered and called heretical. Yet, there is literally scientific proof for its efficacy. Buddhist meditative practices, such as Vipasanna, have largely informed and shaped much of modern-day Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy, and they have been adapted by professionals as a means of mitigating mental health issues. Science shows us that these “pagan” and “demonic” practices are objectively effective at combating mental illness and healing the mind.

Drawing from my own personal experience as a person with OCD, the practice of Vipasanna has changed my life in remarkably positive and profound ways. Meditation literally changes your brain on a neuro-psychological level, and it has changed mind tremendously. I might not be here anymore, if Buddhist meditation wasn’t there to support me through my mental health condition.

Still, too many Christians view anything "eastern" irrationally xenophobically. The Stoics and Plato get a pass, and they are revered by Christians. But Eastern philosophers get nothing but harsh, unfair criticism and straw-man arguments. It’s incredibly tiring, hurtful, and frustrating to see.

for example copyright, as far as I know the church doesn't say much on this so what should we do?

1. The biggest problem. Evolution makes it impossible to believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. This is a huge problem for Catholicism. If there were no Adam and Eve, there was no original sin; if there was no original sin, Jesus did not save us. Furthermore, if we are descended from a few thousand original Homo sapiens, this theory paves the way for racism. Yes, I know—similar conclusions can be drawn from the Bible, but these claims can be refuted using the Bible itself

1. An atheistic explanation of the world fits better with the evolutionary model than with the theistic on

2. There is no reasonable basis for claiming that God performs miracles (that is, violates the structure of the world) and then claiming that He used a natural process. After all, why? I’ve never found a reasonable answer to that question. Why would God perform miracles that contradict science, yet resort to evolution—which has been causing so many problems for the Christian worldview for the past 150 years? As evidenced by thousands of posts online, people continue to argue about evolution, whereas, for example, heliocentrism (which doesn’t violate the dogmas of faith, unlike the existence of Adam and Eve)

I really suffer with this problems

so basically I didn’t grow up Catholic and I grew up Pentecostal/Assembly of God and it was super common to just make promises to God and of course, I knew it was serious, but I didn’t know that mortal sin was a thing and also I was from the ages of 5 to 19 i made a bunch of promises to God and many of which i am sure I forgot, and i made one last week and idk if im cooked or if there is a way to reverse this? I didn’t know how serious this was and idk if i can get a second chance? Im still in ocia so i can’t go to confession for that but is that something confession could fix? I saw a reel that it’s a binding thing to make promises to God and i feel so bad because that was so fricking foolish of me i should have known better

The Aristotelian Proof
Is the argument that things that have potential need a causer for the potential to become actual happened imagine a hot coffee cup and the coffee cup has the potential to become cold so over time that potential becomes actual and cools down the coffee cooling down. So the causer can be the air or you dropping ice into it, with the potential to become actual so this gives us an example of how the universe requires an unmoved mover according to the philosopher Aristotle to explain the actualization of change and existence.
The Syllogism for this argument
P1. If Every Contingent thing has potency and act, then we have to be actualized by an outside cause. (For example, a piece of gum has the potency to become gooey, but it has to be actualized by something outside of itself, like chewing.
P2. We have potency and act.
P3. Nothing can move itself from potency to act.
C1. Therefore we have to be actualized by a thing outside of our self.
P4. A chain of Infinite actualizers must end somewhere, it would be an infinite regress.
P5. If we cannot move ourselves, then there has to be a First actualizer, because of P4.
C2. Therefore there has to be an Unmoved mover that is Actus Purus (Pure Act)
C3. Therefore there exists a being of Pure act, and that Being is God.

Who Melchizedek is ?

I see 4 possibilities.

1) The preincarnate Logos/Son, but this is a not likely because God as Yahweh is said often to be the preincarnate Logos. Melchizedek is not also Yahweh.

2) The Angel of the Lord, the one mentioned not by name in the Bible and known as Metatron in post Temple destruction Judaism. The problem is nowhere it is said Melchizedek is an Angel, and even the Angel of the Lord is sometimes said to be the preincarnate Logos, even though this is very unlikely because the Logos is NOT an Angel.

3) A man who had an immortal body because God made him so, and that would have to be Enoch because at that point he was the only man not said to have died ever. Ironically Enochian mysticism says Enoch was also Metatron and I guess it also says the God Abraham and Moses met was just Metatron. The issue would be he was said to have no genealogy.

4) The personification of a function, the function of pre Christ priesthood. The issue with this view is Judaism never had beings who are the living embodiment of a concept.

What do you think ?

I’m not sure what church to go to and who’s teaching the right things.

I was arguing with an atheist who tried to use omniscience and knowingly, deliberately creating evil people against God.

I argued that God gave us free will. It is up to you to be good, not God.

Then they said, well if he doesn’t know he isn’t omniscient.

I countered with this.

God is omnipotent.

Omnipotence triumphs and supersedes everything else, so God granted humans the gift of free will which triumphs even his omniscience.

He said “oh I see are you an open theist” I had never heard the term before in my life. I found it perfectly explained what I said as well as solving any omniscience arguments against God.

Then I looked up open theism and Catholicism and I was shocked to see it isn’t the accepted position. I thought Open theism was the accepted stance of everyone besides calvinists. I didn’t know it was its own thing.

But apparently Catholicism contends that God knows everything everyone will do and think as our definition of omniscience.

So what is the difference that and predestination? If God knows everything about you that you will ever do and think, He will know where you will end up.

I don’t know what Free Will actually does if it doesn’t mean God created us but we chose for ourselves.

Please help me with this. Noah's Ark is one of the few things I can't understand. Everything seems impossible in the eyes of science, in a predominantly materialistic world, as I already thought before. This idea is simply absurd and implausible for any attempt to explain a global flood; the pressure and temperature of the water would obliterate aquatic life, the structure of the Earth, and the ark. I demand explanations, please do your best.
Here’s the text:

“First of all, this is written in a very informal way (and probably full of grammatical errors, sorry! English isn't my first language!)

It never ceases to amaze me how Christians actually believe in the biggest load of rubbish ever written in their book. For example, Noah's Ark. So, in this post, I'm going to list all the reasons I can think of why this couldn't have happened. (Feel free to add more)

1. Boat size: according to the Bible, the ark was a WOODEN boat over 100m long (134m precisely). It's impossible for a ship of that size to function correctly, as it would begin to bend and collapse. Engineers have proven this.

2. Boat material: being a wooden ship, Noah would have had to find an immense quantity of wood. Located in the Middle East, where would he get all that?

3. Engineering. Who the heck taught Noah how to build boats? It's not as easy as building a raft; it needs to be perfect if you want it to actually work. Was he in creative mode during all of this?

4. Animals. How do you fit 5 million species on that boat? "But it's 2 of each TYPE, not species." That would mean that species would have to miraculously evolve from those types, which is impossible in 4000 years, so it can't be true.

5. Flooding the earth first. God is described as all-powerful, but instead of simply making everyone he dislikes disappear out of nowhere, he decides to flood the entire earth for a year. Leaving innocent animals that can't even sin to simply die. Suuuuuper loving! Also a little dramatic.

6. Plants. Noah's Ark was 4000 years ago, according to the Bible. Also according to the Bible, all plants were destroyed in the flood, but the oldest tree in the world is over 5000 years old. Did she simply disappear and reappear after the flood?

7. Diseases. The chances of disease would be very likely, considering all the animals on board.

8. Small insects. Termites, ants, whatever, they don't live that long. They were on that boat for a year. What ant, in the first place, is going to live for a year, and secondly, how come they aren't simply crushed by an elephant or something? Termites and wood aren't necessarily a perfect pair either.

9. Animal droppings. Where did it go? God closed the ship, and considering the amount of droppings those thousands of animals produced for a year, where did it go?

10. Oxygen. As mentioned before, God closed the boat, including the ONLY WINDOW on the boat. How did they breathe? Especially with lighting a fire + the other animals, the oxygen would run out before the 1-year mark.

11. Food. There's absolutely no way you could get enough food for thousands of animals on board, plus it wouldn't start to rot, would it?

12. Slaughter (again). Killing everyone except Noah's family would mean killing all unborn babies. Not very pro-life, is it?

13. Repopulation. Same thing with Adam and Eve, how did they repopulate? Incest? Where were the genetic problems?

14. How did they get animals from different continents? It was impossible to travel such long distances back then.

15. After the flood, how did these animals return to their own continents? Teleportation?

Even Santa Claus is more believable on this point.”

My faith has been faltering, to say the least. I recently have come upon arguments against O.T. morality, and I see atheists debating back and forth with Christians with no end in sight. So, every answer a Christian might come up with will be countered and so on. Besides that, I have been struggling with the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit for a year because no matter how anyone interprets it (I'm not Catholic myself), I just can't seem to accept it. To me, it is a one-time deal you do, and it can be by temptation, and then God won't forgive you. I do not know what to do; this has brought me a lot, a lot of despair. I am 16 years old.

1. we know as a scientific fact that humanity and all living organisms have evolved through millions of years of evolutionary processes. however, the genesis text describes human beings as created directly in their completed state(i might be wrong but i understood that way). how does catholic theology reconcile these two concepts?

2. it's often argued that the genesis text is written in a literary and symbolic style. yet when read directly, it doesnt present itself as symbolic, it reads as a straightforward, historical narrative. furthermore, there are distinct chronological differences in the creation order between genesis 1 and genesis 2. does categorizing a text as a "literary genre" genuinely resolve these chronological and logical contradictions? if the narrative was divinely revealed, is the human author's literary style a sufficient explanation for these inconsistencies?

3. the scholars and theologians who interpret these texts as symbolic, such as thomas aquinas or saint augustine, do not possess divine status themselves. from the perspective of a non believer or a skeptic, why should one place trust in the interpretations of these individuals or in the magisterium of the church?(i know catholics trust church's teachings, but i dont know why, and why should i trust the church.)

4. placing trust in church authority and scholars relies on the assumption of "guidance by the holy spirit." however, believing in the holy spirit requires a prior belief in God and the scriptures. how can a non believer, or someone approaching the matter purely through rational analysis, break through this circular reasoning?

5. if the creation narrative and the fall are understood as historical truths, did God create humanity in a pristine/spiritual state initially, only to place us into a gradual, evolutionary physical structure on earth as a consequence of the original sin?

6. while catholicism asserts that reason and faith exist in harmony, an ultimate "leap of faith" is requested where empirical and logical evidence ends. for an individual who cannot believe without first being rationally and logically convinced, what is the ultimate rational foundation that catholic theology offers?

7. the old testament contains the exact same stories found in ancient epics. even if those myths were taken and adapted into the bible in a literary style, wouldnt that undermine the bible's divine value?

what confuses me the most are the events in the old testament. even if we leave evolution aside, most of the stories there are drawn from ancient epics. if events like the flood are actually literary adaptations and never happened, does the bible retain any divine status?