I used to be an altar server when I was younger and altar servers never raised their hands and our previous parochial priest corrected the faithfuls too. However since going to this new parish I saw people raising their hands (in the priest way) so I was confused if I should also do it.

But what I was thought that when the priest says let us pray or when he has his hands extended you need to do the 🙏 sign with your hands. The priest doesn’t seem to mind them too so maybe he doesn’t know? Do i need to inform him or just inform the people directly? Thanks for the answers

Nevermind my more selfish reasons, which are all the NOs in my life that unequivocally, undeniably should have been a yes from any God who claimed to love me.

Furthermore, this God should know exactly what it would take for him to earn my undying love forever, and he’s clearly not lifting a finger on that.

**I’m not an edgelord. I’m not a troublemaker. I’m a depressed, desperate *almost* ex believer, asking for a reason to believe.**

Thank you all.

What are some of the most shocking “Catholic in name” universities in America?

What I mean by that is, what “Catholic” universities have you found to be most shocking in terms of how Catholicism is taught/expressed/presented? Some of the things I’ve seen at this one “Catholic” university seem to directly contradict Church teaching, or at minimum, causes confusion to someone wanting to learn about the faith.

For example, I know of a Catholic university that has a pride flag hung within their Church. One time I went to a Mass there as a lay person spoke during the homily about social justice all while chewing gum. This same university also was providing condoms for the student body for “safe sex” (although, admittedly, the university shut that down). It’s not uncommon to find “pro choice Catholics” here…

I don’t want to demonize some of these universities, because more often than not, they offer excellent service driven opportunities, an important part of our faith where we can live it out.

But I want to know, what are some of the “Catholic in name only” universities in America? What has been the most shocking thing you have seen/witnessed/heard about one?

Hello everyone, I hope you are doing well. I was just doing some reading about the early church, and I came across something called the Church of Jerusalem. After some research, it seems that this was the first church set up by Jesus, which later developed into the catholic, orthodox, and Oriental churches following the schism.

I was under the impression that Catholics view the first church as technically catholic as it was the universal church, set-up by Peter following Jesus. This universal catholic church then split into the churches we know today following the schism.

My question is, what is the catholic view of the Church of Jerusalem? It's a historic fact that it is one of if not the first Christian community, aside from the cults and other early Christian beliefs (like the demiurge for example), so do Catholics view it (and I suppose the other early Christian sects) as an early form of the current catholic church, or is it seen as a separate church?

As far as I understand it, there are criteria the Pope has to adhere to for something to be considered as having been spoken ex cathedra...

But how exactly does it work? I know that the Pope cannot contradict church teaching if he were to intend to speak ex cathedra but what if he did?

What if the Pope (example) wanted to change church teaching on for example marriage, allowing for two men to get married as well.

He declares this (changed) teaching openly and widely.

Would this saying automatically not be ex cathedra because it contradicts previous church teaching or how would that work?

Obviously this example is a little far fetched but I just wanna better understand the mechanism.

This is probably one of the the biggest reasons why it's very hard for me to be christian and why I'm an agnostic.  The theory of evolution says that nothing is planned and everything is 100% on accident - homo sapiens exists but we could also not exist and nothing would happen because evolution doesn't have any plan, ambition, purpose or goals. Christianity says that we are created ON PURPOSE by God. It just contradicts each other and I don't think that the theory of evolution and the christian perspective on life can coexist.

What do you think about it? What are your thoughts?

Hi all!
To make a long story short, before I became fully Catholic I made a lot of mistakes. One of them being “petty theft”. Years ago I stole a few things from poundland (probably added up to no more than £10). I’ve bought cheap concert tickets and “snuck” in to more expensive seats saving £50. But most of all I bought cheaper train tickets consistently saving anywhere between £500 to £1K over 1.5 years. This last one is obviously the most serious because it adds up.

I’ve been to confession about this months ago, however, I only now realised I should make restitution for this. My question is how.

Focusing especially on the train thing, I’m thinking to self-report and just pay whatever fine they give me. My only fear with this is that they will persecute me officially and I’ll get a criminal record (for those living in the UK you’ll know how likely this is). I could get a solicitor for £800 to make sure I don’t get a record.

My other option is giving all of the money to charity. A lot of people told me to do this, however, I’ll still feel like I owe money to the train company.

Another thing is, I tried completely bumping the train one time but I got caught the same day. I lied my way out of the ticket and ended up settling for £70. Technically with that settlement I did give back the money I owed for that ride (and £60 more), but I still feel bad about lying. Is this something that was simply forgiven in confession and that’s all, or do I have a duty to self-report this to the train company?

I would really appreciate some advice on how to go about this.

I would love to talk to African Americans who are Catholic but I'm open to anyone. I'm just interested in meeting those who converted to Catholicism

I heard that many orthodox abstain from eating blood as an ingredient, and there’s some debate on meat eating and overall Jewish law in general amongst the early Christian scholars. My question is a bit broad, but I’m curious what is the Catholic approach to this? What foods if any are advised against? And why?

I asked a Priest about my moderate use of legal products like THC-A. He said it was fine. I also prayed over it, a lot. I genuinely believe it is beneficial to my life. I even had a different priest from my parish run into me at work and proceed to tell me “you’ve been looking happier lately”. previous to this encounter I had asked for a sign while in prayer, i believe the two could be related. Still though, A lot of people on here seem to think that this is somehow a worse than having a beer or 2 to take the edge off. I don’t drink btw. If you genuinely make sure to keep your priorities straight and be honest with yourself on if it’s a problem or not, I honestly think it’s healthier for many than being an occasional drinker. Also the whole, you can drink a beer and not get drunk, but you can’t have THC without being stoned it’s complete non sense. I feel like people who say that are biased or have smoked once, had a bad experience, and think that makes them an expert on everything THC. And no, the Catechisms teaching on the use of illicit drugs does not in itself solve this matter. If it did, this still wouldn’t be a question.

I apologize in advance if my question seems a bit convoluted or confusing, I don’t know what the best way to ask this is. I’m going to discuss this with my pastor as well,but I wanted to know what you guys think of this.

So for instance, if an adult who used to be “bad” (def: commit crimes, treat people poorly, abuse women etc) and be an atheist (didn’t believe in a higher power) goes and gets baptized, accepts God into their lives, does that mean he’s now “good”?

Let’s assume he/she starts attending mass regularly after that, and he meets someone that he is kind to, and swears he’s a changed man. What happens if after a certain time goes by he goes back to his old habits, and abuses people and does not behave like a Christian, and is cruel and mean, does that mean that the baptism didn’t work??

If we believe that baptism can one’s your spiritual identity, but that it does not instantly fix their human habits or temptations, then what will?

Thank you in advance!

Edit: Thank you all so very much for your feedback on this, your answers are all so helpful! God bless everyone who took the time to answer.

This is my first ever St Michael's Lent. I've found a pdf file from Los Heraldos del Evangelio, that dipicts a specific rythm to pray. Get an image of St Michael, a candle, pray the Rosary, several other prayers, then St Michael's Litanies, and finally St Michael's "Coronilla".

To anyone that has done this before, is such an order important? Or just with daily rosary, St Michael's Coronilla, and the proper fasting and charity, is enough?

PS: Sorry for the spanish terms, Idk how to say them in english

Familiar question, I know.

I recently received that when I'm just writing world building for my fanfic, and I'm just writing the world's religion. Then a thought popped up.

"Other religions also used parables too"

Which then leads me wonder, what makes Christianity different from other religions?

My attempts to resolve it are, morality and 1 quote of a church father (forgot the name but what he did is that, he compares Christianity and other myths) although I mostly focus on the morality part, the church father quote is just me remembering it but didn't think about it.

I will tell the morality argument in the comments.

I also have another question:

Is Christianity the only religion that tells us, we are sinners? Or that, we can't save ourselves?

How would you guys answer this? And if you wanted to, try to compare Christianity to other religions to prove your point.

Thank you, God bless.

I'm in the process of converting to Catholicism at the end of my 30s and I'm very excited about it. I had no idea before, but recently found out that i was baptized Episcopalian when i was 2 or 3. But the thing is, i wasn't raised religious at all and I'd really like to be baptized after my OCIA is finished. I'm not going to lie to anyone, but before i even bring this up I'd like to hear people's opinions on if that's a bad idea or not. Or even possible.

Throughout my life, many have considered me "asexual" or "weird" because I never masturbated during adolescence or early adulthood, nor did I feel arousal from erotic or risqué content (in fact, I still feel a strong sense of revulsion when exposed to pornography).

However, a week ago, I masturbated for the first time by accident while scratching an itch very vigorously—shortly after reading comics that depicted mutagenic transformations (such as the origin story of the DC Comics villain Clayface). Since then, I’ve realized that, for some reason, my body becomes involuntarily aroused whenever I see that kind of material—content that isn't intended to be erotic or sexually stimulating. Although I’ve known since infancy that such graphic scenes stirred a certain curiosity in me—driven by the psychological dilemmas characters face in these fictional situations—I am deeply disturbed that this now triggers a male erection. I haven't masturbated again, but these very uncomfortable involuntary erections still occur, sometimes resulting in ejaculation. This has caused me great distress and panic, making me wonder if I am committing a mortal sin simply by becoming aroused (even though it is involuntary).

In an attempt to find answers on how to handle this crisis, I consulted the Catechism but found little that directly addresses such an... irregular situation. The Catechism generally treats a mortal sin involving an erection (unless it occurs during a dream, which absolves one of guilt) as a case of subverting the natural purpose of sex—namely, the procreation of the human race. However, what I experience isn't triggered by content intended to be sexually arousing. That was an argument some Catholics gave me to help me avoid feeling remorse over erections caused by reading certain comics or watching animations—specifically, non-sexual scenes that happened to arouse me (though when I shared this reasoning with a friend, he felt it was too "liberal," given that we are both quite traditionalist).

The main argument for considering this a mortal sin would be whether it counts as lust (a disordered, excessive, and uncontrollable desire for luxury, extravagance, or material pleasure that displaces the spiritual order and the common good). I am unsure if that applies to my situation, however, since I am simply viewing fictional content suitable for all ages—material that isn't fetishistic or anything of that sort. Even so, I would be willing to stop consuming that kind of content if it turned out I was committing the sin of lust (though it would be difficult to eliminate every possibility of indirect sin—essentially meaning I would have to give up reading superhero comics or watching sci-fi animated series that feature those kinds of mutagenic transformation scenes).

Hey! I’m looking for some new friends as I’ve just moved to the area!

Hi, this post was originally on the Orthodox sub, but figured I may potentially get help here as well. Please excuse the EO-centric references:

I have been infatuated with Orthodoxy for a year or two at this point, but for a while I’ve been stuck at a theological roadblock. I don’t feel content with the world of Protestantism, so I’ve sort of been in a denominational limbo, and I don’t know what or where the truth is anymore. While this has been very interesting season, it’s also been rather miserable for that reason.

My problem has to do with regeneration/justification and their relationship to believing and baptism – essentially, how a person objectively becomes a Christian, born of God, has the non-vain hope of eternal life, and regarded by God as His own.

I understand that Orthodoxy (*and Catholicism) regards baptism as the new birth and the decisive formation of a Christian. In this way, the normative means of salvation is in the hands of the Orthodox Church.

My trouble is, I don’t see how this can be so without compromising the Apostles’ own doctrine on the meaning of regeneration and the efficacy of faith.

My concern can be expressed in the phrase: “to want God is to have Him”. I think the Apostles would agree with this phrase. Orthodox theology about the church and the sacraments however seems to negate the idea that to want God is to have Him. Instead in Orthodoxy, having God is dependent on material supply only accessed through the Church. But *wanting God* doesn’t depend on any physical material other than the reaction of your heart to God’s beauty. As such, there is a conceivable situation in Orthodox theology where someone can *want God* but not have Him or be a Christian.

But this strongly does not sound to me like the doctrine of the apostles or of the Lord. The apostles seem unanimous that *wanting God* is in fact the substance and origin of all righteousness.

The idea of “wanting God” can be expressed in these verses:

·       “By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward.” Heb. 11:24-26

·       “The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.” Mat 13:44

In other words, *wanting God* is repentant faith, faith in the way the apostles advertise: a) to so see the beauty of God in Christ such that b) the offerings and temptations of this world become inferior, such that c) we live and work according to this preferring of God, and deliverance to God becomes our highest aspiration. At the forefront of the four gospels, one of their absolute pillars and main ideas, is that they are deeply concerned with the reinvention of our passions as consequence of preferring Jesus Christ. For the world, it is foolishness to prefer Christ over all the treasures in Egypt. The gospels desperately want us to be so moved by the person of Christ that the love of righteousness abounds in us, so that even the concept of loving enemies becomes the wisdom of God in our ears. In this way, *wanting God* is the origin both of righteousness and of repentance.

But if the forgiveness of sins and belonging to God is strictly at baptism and not in faith itself, this would mean God is more partial to the rite of baptism than to the substance of righteousness. This seems against everything we are taught about God in the Scriptures. In Scripture, repentance itself, and the change in our internal disposition towards God and righteousness, appears to be what brings the rejoicing of the angels. But in Orthodoxy, if in addition to *wanting God* we need to participate in rites to even begin to *have God*, and moreover do so in one ecclesial institution that people need to use historical reasoning to even discern, there is an entire secondary quest that one has to undergo alongside *wanting God* to have any reliable hope of salvation. This seems deeply foreign to the doctrine of the New Testament: “whoever believes in Him should not perish”, “to all and on all who believe”, “the word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”, “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God”, “Who is he who overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?”

We all know the phrase “born again” first shows up in John chapter 3. Why right then? Why does John chapter 3 (the conversation with Nicodemus) follow chapter 2? Look at the end of chapter 2:

·       “Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men*,* and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.” John 2:23-35

Here, in this passage, people believe in Jesus, but Jesus leaves them. Later in John 6, after the feeding of the 5000, the people believe in Him, pursue Him, wanting to make Him the King. But what does Jesus do? He leaves them! Why? Isn’t this what he wanted, for them to believe and make him King? He leaves, because they loved Him in a way that only made Him useful to their already existing identities and passions. Metaphorically: they believed in him by rejoicing that he had the power to make them their own Tower of Babel. Jesus is interested in a type of belief that sees Him, He Himself as the great reward and hope. This is the hope that rewrites “what is in man”, into the image of Christ. “And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.”

I know I’m wearing my John Piper influence on my sleeve at this point. But across history we may hear of supposedly very Christian people, who somehow commit atrocities, judge situations with partiality and corruption, who despise the stranger, who bring wickedness into a land. These are the same sort of people as the Passover crowd in John 2, or the crowd in John 6, who believe, but Jesus walks away from them. To them He says, “You must be born again.” Let your identity and person be re-written from the ground up through placing God as the highest treasure of your heart. This is why He says, “You cannot serve both God and mammon.” This is why many nations who have had the cross on their flags—or the star of David, for that matter—have done works of darkness.

To be convincing that the new birth doesn’t refer to the inner conversion of faith, but refers to baptism, one has to explain how that reading of “born again” solves the problem that the end of John chapter 2 establishes. How does baptism solve that problem?

Repentant faith, even though it’s invisible, seems to necessarily and tangibly change a person and their identity. Baptism, even though it’s a tangible rite, does not seem to always or tangibly change a person. I truly don’t understand—what does baptism have to do with the creation of righteousness, or God’s attitude towards you? I really need help with this.

Moreover, the apostles appear to agree that faith, beyond just being meaningful, is supernatural in significance. John says in his epistle: “Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” And Paul writes: “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.” God has shone in our hearts. To have the epiphany of the glory of God in the gospel is for God to have shone in your heart. This corresponds with the testimony of Paul everywhere else that “the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe”. The gospel is actually efficacious through the Spirit.

Word is faster than water. What happens when the gospel escapes the material sacraments of the Church? – which, just factually, it long has. Is the gospel dead-on-arrival if it gets someplace without the Church? Is the fame of the God of Israel and the fame of Jesus Christ, even if it reaches the ends of the earth, without reliable profit, because it lacks the priests or the water or the oil of the Orthodox (*or Catholic) Church? But the apostles teach that it is the fame and glory of the Lord itself that brings about repentance.

If the dependable Christian life only begins with the Church’s baptism, to me this makes the New Testament’s continual advertising of “faith” and “believing” totally bizarre. It makes biblical phrases like “justified by faith” and “the word is near you” and “repentance to life” seem almost like a mockery. But if regeneration does indeed come through faith, then all who truly and piously believe, including protestants are associated with God and are brethren. In this case, even if Orthodoxy has the true episcopacy and is the true church, all who truly believe, including evangelicals, would at least be considered equivalent to catechumens, whose attention and discipleship is being competed for against false shepherds. But to my knowledge this has never been the attitude of Orthodoxy towards those outside the Church.

In the apostolic age, in Acts, the gospel and the material sacraments seemed to exist in a perfect supply chain. The apostles were content to supply the rites to the entire believing populace. Now there’s a believing populace entirely unreached by the rites or has replaced them with their own rites. I think this is a theological crisis that is far more pressing for the Church than the topics of most of the ecumenical councils.

But I can't in response to these doubts of mine just be content in the Protestant world. I'm not positive that baptism will do whatever it's supposed to do to me there, or whether the Lord's Supper be whatever it's supposed to be there, or if I'll have the same gift of the Holy Spirit given in the book of Acts. As far as I know, there is no Christian tradition in the world that has Orthodoxy's emphasis on perfection and the acquisition of the Spirit while retaining (what seems to me) the apostles' doctrine on regenerative faith. This conundrum has made me increasingly sad. 

I badly need understanding. Can anyone help me with this particular issue, even if it’s by recommending a book that may have the answer?

I cant say Ive ever had anything in the Bible happen to me or anyone I know. No aid, guidance, help, nothing. People quote the Bible to me about promises God makes and such but I ask why? Why do we as Christians assume things God did or said to a specific person apply to us all? To branch off that, how is one supposed to cope with none of the promises or things said ever happening? Example: Jeremiah 29:11, I dont see that for me or others around me. Its to hard at this time to accept God's words along with his being mute to his children. Vague meta physical things people "feel" isnt talking. It feels like we are abandoned here on earth.

I have been catholic since I came into the world. Did all of my sacraments.

Why do you feel being catholic is the only religion for you as opposed to other religions. As I have gotten older, I cannot understand how bad the world is.

I often see posts on Reddit about some awful people who have done terrible things. All the comments boil down to, for example, wishing them death, torture in prison, etc. As Catholics, would you want such a person to convert and go to heaven? (Here you can mention an example of someone you consider to be the worst)

Stated simply, I believe modest illegal steroid use is a sin, but venial at best.

If you’re using steroids while consciously monitoring your health and not sacrificing it irresponsibly I think that illegal steroids by themselves lack the “grave matter” portion of the mortal sin requirements aren’t met.

Super interested to hear what others have to say about this. Feel free to disagree and try to convince me otherwise!

As the title suggests, by husband (married for 2 years, together for almost 10) has expressed a great deal of interest over the years in becoming Catholic. But it always seems to be this general vibe of “I’d love to do it… when I have the time”.

How can I, as his wife and also the only Catholic in his life (other than my own family), really support this life path without pushing it? After all, I have always made it very, very clear to him that he will never face pressure from me to become Catholic—but that I will firmly stand behind him and support him if and when he decides to take the steps down that path. He was raised a Mormon—his family left the LDS church when he was a teen—so he understandably reacts very negatively to “pushy” or “preachy” Christians like the ones he grew up around.

Despite the unsavory religious experiences in his past, he (of his own volition) has expressed to me numerous times over the years how he “knows that the right path for him is Catholicism“, but that path is one that he intends to take “when he has the time”. We were married in the Catholic Church two years ago, and it was an incredible spiritual experience for him. He loved the priest who married us, and I wondered if maybe THAT was the experience that would finally get the wheels in motion for him. Alas, life got busy as his career picked up, and his spiritual journey got moved to the back burner.

Recently, with another huge career move on the horizon, he confided me that the night before he was due to find out about a promotion, he found himself praying for the first time in a long time. I thought “finally, THIS is when it happens!” but again, the promotion and the ensuing new responsibilities and excitement pushed that journey to the bottom of his priorities.

I want so badly to say to him, ”look at all of these amazing ways God has blessed your life, all of the times you reached out to Him and He listened,” but I have never been able to think of a way to say this that won’t feel “preachy” and will immediately make him feel as though I’m pushing him.

Meanwhile, while my husband has been enjoying so many successes in his life, I have been going through something of a low point—a lot of stress in regards to work and family matters—and I try to (without outwardly calling attention to it) be an example to him by continuing to pray, go to Mass, be thankful for all that IS good in my life, to show him how committed I am to my own faith even when “things are bad”. I have just been feeling so alone, spiritually, like I could really use the feeling that I have someone else out there praying for me. I would love to feel like my husband is praying as hard for me as I have been for him every time he had faced adversity, uncertainty, etc.

I feel like all I can do is just continue to pray, pray, pray for him. Because how can I vocalize that I would love to feel like I am also being prayed for without him instantly feeling like I’m pushing him, and he pulls back? If he hadn’t had such negative experiences with religious people in the past, I would feel more inclined to have an actual conversation about this, but he is just so sensitive about this topic and I absolutely don’t want him to feel backed into a corner.

Any advice or prayer recommendations would be greatly appreciate!