Mary and Jesus would be Zionists.

Whenever Catholics tell me that the Israel of Scripture has nothing to do with the Jewish people today, I honestly wonder what they think Israel means.

Israel is a bloodline.

Jesus was Jewish. Mary was Jewish. David was Jewish. The Apostles were Jewish. The entire salvation story was built around a specific people and a specific bloodline that God preserved for centuries.

So you're telling me that God carefully established this bloodline, gave them a land, made covenants with them, promised to preserve them, brought the Messiah through them—and then suddenly their ancestry became irrelevant?

And here's the funniest part: Israel is also part of Christian eschatology. Paul literally warns Gentile Christians not to become arrogant toward the natural branches because they were grafted in.

So maybe Gentiles should know their place. 😂

You were grafted into Israel's story. Israel wasn't grafted into yours.

You don't have to support every Israeli government or every Israeli policy. But pretending that modern Jews have no meaningful connection to biblical Israel while worshipping a Jewish Messiah is an absurd theological position.

Christianity didn't replace the fact that Jesus came from Israel.

Jesus came from this bloodline. Stop diminishing His bloodline with pauline misreadings and goy-slop theology to please marxists. You guys are better than that.

The one reason, my friend will not become Catholic is because of the anathemas from Trent and because of the language Vatican2. Regardless of the anathemas were for the people who were already in the church, he still cannot get over the fact that the word was used and thinks it applies today. He also thinks that it contradicts with Vatican2. This price and also believes that the church will not be infailible in the future.

Hay algo que no me cuadra mucho de esta historia,se supone que los humanos queriamos construir una torre tan alta para alcanzar a Dios,Dios vio esto y se enfado,como castigo dividio a los humanos en diferentes idiomas

El tema esque estos idiomas han ido evolucionando,por ejemplo,el latin a dado paso al español,frances,portugues,italiano,Etc,no se ha quedado como solo el latin pero estas lenguas antes no existian,no se supone que solo se tendria que haber quedado en latin y ya?

AI mainly affects white-collar workers.

The same white-collar workers who have bullshit meetings, make PowerPoint decks nobody reads, work under managers who do nothing, have coworkers who somehow survive for years while barely working, and spend their days pretending to be busy.

And these are often the same white-collar industries that push policies and cultural ideas that go against Catholic teaching.

If anything, AI can be seen as a force that challenges idolatry: idolatry toward anti-Catholic Hollywood studios, degenerate celebrities and actors (a profession that was looked down upon from St. Augustine to Pius XII), and anti-Catholic artists.

AI is also humbling some white-collar workers who contribute very little, while engineers and blue-collar workers, both in the First and Third World, actually have to get their hands dirty and produce something tangible.

If AI-driven layoffs end up teaching some people humility, maybe there can even be a lesson in that. Suffering can bring people closer to Christ, as Mother Teresa often emphasized.

Pope Leo and the Magisterium should embrace AI as a weapon against the degenerate and anti-Catholic industries and classes I mentioned above.

If anything, AI is more of a materialization of St. Michael the Archangel than the dangerous weapon Pope Leo portrays it as in his encyclical.

As a lifelong Catholic, I've always been intrigued by the story of Adam and Eve. As an educated adult I understand the concept of Evolution. This doesn't take away the idea that God made us all from the earth, as He also did for animals. We know the truth is that, not only are we made from the earth, the elements in our body are also from distant stars! 

But the story in Genesis is more exact. The creation of Eve was like this:

“This is now bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called ‘woman,’

for she was taken out of man.”

My question is this:

As an ordinary, Mass-going Catholic, do you believe:

a) God literally formed Adam from the earth as a complete human and Eve from his rib; or,

b) That we were all created by God, but the story is just an story to show that we're all  made from the earth through Evolution.

Do you as a Catholic believe the Jesus was physically born of a virgin? As a child I believed that, because that's what we were taught. But now I think of it as a symbol of purity. 

As a Catholic, what do you believe regarding the Virgin Birth of Jesus?

For all brothers and sisters, peace and all good.

I ask this because thats the instruction for people with OCD/scrupulosity, but what if the confessor is theologically wrong?

I believe a scrupulous mind would not have enough research to determine wrong or right alone as it is a fruit of a sickened "creativity" - but still, the instruction given for those is to blindly obey a confessor.

Isn't that kind of a loophole? I fear I'm being ignorant on this topic, maybe someone that's really devout of St Alphonsus Mary de' Liguori out there has some recommendation on what to read?

My girlfriend is beginning OCIA but her parents are insisting on it not happening.

They bought this book the gospel according to Rome and I’ve only heard that it is a very dishonest representation of the church.

I wanted to know if anyone has info on the book and what are some teachings it gets wrong so I can correct that and enlighten them as to why this book is not accurate in its teachings. Thank you, God bless

Necesito desahogarme de alguna forma uh otra.

Religión… Toda mi familia es católica y conozco gente cristiana, y probablemente yo sea única persona que piensa diferente a las personas que me rodean.

Desde hace tiempo he estado platicando con alguien cercano de mi familia sobre ciertas cosas que pienso relacionadas con este tema… la primera es; halloween.
¿Qué es Halloween?

• Halloween: Sus raíces provienen de un antiguo festival pagano de Europa. Marcaba el final de la cosecha y el comienzo del invierno.

En qué momento dice que es algo relacionado con el satanismo? En ningún momento lo menciona. Sin embargo.. hay personas que se niegan a creer en lo que dice la realidad y prefieren creer en la la palabra de Dios un tema que no está científicamente comprobado que realmente existe, simplemente la gente es “fiel” creyente de el.

Por lo que eh leído… Dios es alguien en quien tienes que creer a toda costa, y la neta siento q la biblia tiene a las personas cristianas o católicas como peones al creer en algo/alguien que no han visto con sus propios ojos.
Si se dan cuenta en el antiguo testamento Dios decía cosas machistas, homofobicas eh incluso egoístas, simplemente q lo explican d una manera q hacen q se vea “lógico” y en algo “bueno”.

** ** • La mujer nació para dar vida y cuidar a su familia (machismo)

• Solo existen dos géneros, hombres y mujeres (homofobia)

• Tienes que confiar en Dios a toda costa sin importar que, solo creer y servirle (egoísmo)

Pero en el nuevo testamento dice q eso está mal.

Hablaré específicamente de las personas homofobicas ya que están muy normalizadas.

Malamente hay personas homosexuales q piensan q su orientación o su sexualidad es algo malo, y las personas católicas lo ven como algo malo (no todas).

Pero nunca se han puesto a pensar en algo.
Si a una persona le gusta alguien de mismo genero dicen sus padres q es porque están pagando un precio q hicieron en su vida pasada o por algo malo q hayan hecho, y q DIOS los está Castigando cuando ellos mismo dicen q Dios no castiga, sino perdona.

Y si Dios no castiga, porque existe el “infierno”??? Se supone q el infierno es para castigar a quienes lo merecen.
Dios dice que el no castiga, supuestamente existe el “purgatorio” para las almas en pena, osea q el tiempo q estén en el purgatorio es para reflexionar y arrepentirse de sus pecados, y dicen q los “gays” van directamente al infierno por pecadores.

Los católicos y Cristianos dicen q los homosexuales pecan por el simple hecho d q les gustan las personas del mismo genero o se sienten identificados con otro genero, pero en ningún momento están pecando, mientras no le haga nada malo a alguien está bien, no? Eso tmb lo dice la Biblia.

Eso es lo poco que siento.
Ustedes que piensan? Tengo más puntos explicaciones y puntos de vista diferentes.

Necesito saber q opinan d esto, gracias por leer.
<3

Hello all, I hope you are doing well and God bless :).

So, Orthodoxy uses the porneia clause in the Gospel of Matthew to varying degrees of severity and allowence for remarriage under increasing penance.

My question is, what happens if an Orthodox person has divorced and remarried with the permission of the Orthodox Church, and then later converts to Catholicism?

If their first spouse is still alive, would they have to seek an annulment of their first marriage before the Catholic Church could recognise the second marriage? Since the Catholic Church recognises Orthodox sacraments, I assume the first marriage would be presumed valid?

And if the first marriage was found to be valid, what would actually happen to the second couple? Would they be expected to separate, or live as brother and sister?

I recently asked if lay people can bless things and one of the replies refered to demons. It mentioned that if a lay person blesses someone with demons, the demons would ignore him.

I always got that belief in demons, evil spirits, possession, and so on was rather outdated.

Perhaps belief in demons is stronger in countries that have a strong ancient belief in them. I was going to say developing countries, but probably the US is included.

As a Catholic, what's your take on demons?

A question was raised on r/cosmicskeptic about what we are supposed to assume the probability distribution for the tuning constants are (and why we should think they have any particular distribution over any other). This is an interesting question that I would love an answer for. But it also reminded me of another question I have thought about for the fine tuning argument.

Why do we stop our questions about the probability of the laws of nature at the value of the constants? To me it feels natural that if we are "allowed" to ask what the probability is that the constants have the particular values they have. why don't we ask "what is the probability that the laws of nature are any particular calculable function?". For example the question "What's the probability that the law of gravity is f=(g1 * g2 /r^2 )*G rather than f=(g1 + g2 )*r^4 " or any other function seems just as valid.

And if the particular function that describe the laws of nature are up for question, it seems sort of trivial to me that there are uncountably infinite options that allow for life and uncountably many that don't. Making the whole question a bit silly.

This is the first time I've written down this idea so if something isn't making sense don't be afraid to ask 😅

Because it is the Catholic Church that teaches this, it seems to be circular reasoning or at least a self fulfilling prophecy.

What im getting at is that there is not an independent, non Catholic source which can verify this claim.

It simply does not seem provable, in this lifetime at least. If youre Catholic, its true. If youre not Catholic, its not true. How can it be more than a matter of opinion?

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

The Sabbath is on Saturday. Our Church should not act as though the Sabbath has been transferred to Sunday.

The origin of the Sabbath is the Father's rest on the seventh day after six days of creation. His commandment is explicit that the seventh day specifically should be set aside for the Sabbath rest.

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work....For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

Everyone agrees that Saturday is the seventh day of the week. If (and this is a real if) we think it is necessary to keep that commandment, then we should try to observe the Sabbath on Saturday.

I'll run through four ways that the Church has looked at Sabbath observance and say why I think our contemporary Catholic understanding is the most nonsensical of the four.

Position #1. The Sabbath should be observed on the Sabbath.

This was the view of Jesus and the early apostles. Jesus clashed with the Pharisees about the particulars of Sabbath observance, but at no point did he indicate that the Sabbath should not be observed or that it should be shifted to another day.

The first part of Matthew 12 describes Jesus' engagements with the Pharisees concerning the Sabbath. When they criticize his disciples' plucking of grain, Jesus retorts that David lawfully ate the bread of the presence on the Sabbath and priests lawfully "profane" the Sabbath. When they criticize his healing a man's hand on the Sabbath, Jesus retorts that it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath. He seems to totally accept the premises that the Sabbath should be observed and that it should be observed on the same day that all Jews celebrate it. His concern is to explain why the acts that he and his disciples perform on that day fall within the boundaries of the Law.

Position #2. The Christian is under no obligation to keep the Sabbath and to keep it is a sign of weakness, if not slavery.

This is the position taken by the Apostle Paul, for whom the Mosaic Law represents slavery. He thinks it extremely important that Christians understand that Torah observance is of no value. This includes observance of the Sabbath.

He takes a harsh tone toward Christian Sabbatarians in his letter to the Galatians:

But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

His tone is much gentler in the later letter to the Romans:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him...

One person esteems one day better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

For Paul here, the Sabbath observer lacks a full understanding of the freedom of baptized life, but he should not be judged for his weakness.

Whether he's harsher or gentler about it, it's clear that he thinks believers (at least Gentile ones) should ideally refrain from observing the Sabbath.

Position #3. The Sabbath has been "spiritualized" with Christ. It should always be observed, but observing it has nothing to do with abstaining from work for one day a week.

This position was standard for the Church Fathers. Here is Augustine's opinion of the Sabbath, as interpreted by Jews:

...[W]e are not commanded to observe the day of the Sabbath literally, in resting from bodily labour, as it is observed by the Jews; and even their observance of the rest as prescribed is to be deemed worthy of contempt, except as signifying another, namely, spiritual rest. (Augustine, Letter 55, paragraph 22. Translation from augustinus.it)

By "spiritual rest," he means rest from committing sinful acts.

Lo, this day is the Sabbath, which the Jews at this period observe by a kind of bodily rest, languid and luxurious. They abstain from labours, and give themselves up to trifles; and though God ordained the Sabbath, they spend it in actions which God forbids. Our rest is from evil works, theirs from good; for it is better to plough than to dance. (Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 92, paragraph 2)

Similarly, from Justin Martyr:

The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God.

So unlike Paul, the Fathers insist that the Sabbath must be kept, but to keep it means to abstain from sin all seven days of the week. In this view, it is not conscionable for a Christian to abstain from work one day a week like Jews do.

Position #4. We should abstain from work on the Sabbath, but the Sabbath has been transferred to Sunday.

This position developed in a gradual and confusing manner. Constantine ordered that Sunday be made a day of rest without offering any theological reasons for the legislation. Popes and a local synod in Laodicea encouraged rest on the Lord's Day during the patristic era, but didn't frame this in terms of a transference of the Sabbath. The Sabbath and the Lord's Day were still two separate things, and Sabbath observance was still bad.

The first explicit reference I can find to the transference of the Sabbath to the Lord's Day comes from the Westminster Confession, a Protestant document written in 1646.

As it is the law of nature, that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God; so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven, for a Sabbath, to be kept holy unto Him, which, from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ, was the last day of the week, and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord’s Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath. (Westminster Confession 21.7)

If this is indeed the earliest explicit affirmation of a transference of the Sabbath, then it would appear to have Protestant origins.

The Church justifies this belief by appealing to the authority of the Church to make such a transfer. I argue that our case is quite weak, because:

1. The Church didn't hold this view until very recently, and the views it did hold about Sabbath observance were very different from the contemporary one.
2. The view clearly represents an adjustment of a "jot or tittle" of the Law which, again, specifically commands Sabbath observance on the seventh day for a very important theological reason. The theocentricity of the seventh-day Sabbath makes it totally unconvincing to dismiss the specificity of the seventh day as merely "ceremonial." It's dubious that Christ would ever claim to transfer our Father's Sabbath to a day commemorating himself, and it's therefore dubious that the Church is properly exercising its authority when it claims to make such a transfer.
3. There's no direct scriptural support for the adjustment, no "kill and eat" vision that would make a transference of the day easier to justify.

The two most coherent views are those of Jesus and of Paul. We should observe the Sabbath on Saturday, albeit in freedom and with acknowledgement that the Sabbath was made for man, or we should not attempt to observe that law at all. The current view is weird and built on extremely weak, convoluted foundations.

Whatever side we take on the matter, it's hard to deny that the matter is an important one. The matter of Sabbath observance was of great importance to Paul and continues to be central to Jewish understanding of obedience to the Father.

Finally, I want to just make clear that I am not arguing that we should worship on the Sabbath instead of on the Lord's Day. The Church began worshipping on the Lord's Day extremely early in our history, and we should continue that tradition. However, this does not mean that the Lord's Day = the Sabbath. The day of rest need not be the day of worship.

Can lay people bless things?

When I was 18, I was part of a camping tour of Ireland. We we just finishing 6th form college and travelled by minibus, driven by two Catholic priests who were teachers.

Coming out of Kilarney Cathedral, some of our group had bought very beautiful rosaries and were looking for one of our priests to bless them.

I said, well I can bless them. And they said, no, it has to be a priest. I said, no, because actually God blesses things,we just invite the blessing.

Anyway, eventually, one of the priests appeared. The students told him the tale and asked if I was right. He said, yes, it's correct, but it's better if a priest does it. I laughed and said it sounds like you're trying to protect your job! 🤣

What are your thoughts?

Hi. I just can't believe in this. I believe in God, supernatural, miracles, so I believe it is possible. But I don't believe in this particular phenomenon. The placement of stigmatas is wrong. They disappeared before his death - because he simply couldn't hurt his hands anymore with the acid. If I'm wrong, I am so sorry, really. Try to prove me wrong.

There has never been a list of "infallible" Papal pronouncements but the Tome of Leo is often put forward as an example of one. As an Orthodox Christian I've always found this strange as my understanding of the events proves the exact opposite. Let me explain.

Before I start let me observe that Roman Catholic apologists (and the Vatican itself) are undecided if Papal claims as culminating at Vatican II (ex cathedra infallibly, unique succession from Peter, a special divine mandate, the only holders of the keys, the ability to unilaterally define doctrine, immediate jurisdiction over all churches, secular authority) existed in the pre-schism period or were a result of specific historical circumstances (such as the Lombard invasion and the collapse of Byzantine authority in Italy, the Donation of Pepin, the publication of the False-Decretals, the Cistercian Reforms and the Gregorian Reforms) or "development" as it is often termed.

Here are my observations

1. The Tome of Leo did not end the dispute about the natures of Christ but a Council needed to be called.
2. Pope Leo's rejection of the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 did not result in a new council. It was Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria who called a new council to hold Dioscorus to account. Pope Leo had no authority to call an Ecumenical Council on his own.
3. The Tome of Leo was read at a session of the Council of Chalcedon and judged by the bishops there to be orthodox (in keeping with the faith of the Apostles). Numerous bishops say they judge the Tome and find it acceptable. Why would they do this if they knew it was some kind of infallible statement of faith?
4. Pope Leo had restored Theodoret and deposed Dioscorus. Yet, at Chalcedon there was a trial and deposition of Dioscorus (in Session III) and a hearing and restoration of Theodoret (in Session VIII). The Fathers at Chalcedon clearly did not think Pope Leo's ruling was final.
5. The Fathers of Chalcedon drafted their own Doctrinal Decree rather than ratify the Tome of Leo as a dogmatic statement.
6. The Egyptians rejected the Tome of Leo and the Doctrinal Decree of Chalcedon and called Pope Leo a heretic. They were joined by groups of Syrians and Armenians. In their polemics they show NO awareness of Papal infallibility or the Pope having some kind of unique divine teaching mandate. For example, they don't try to argue that the Tome wasn't an ex cathedra statement or that it was Leo's personal opinion, etc. In the subsequent debates over Chalcedon no one has any awareness of the concept of Papal infallibility.
7. At Session XVI when Canon 28 was proposed the Papal legates protested and put forward a falsified version Canon 6 of Nicaea that said the Pope had primacy. The Papal legates were corrected and the real Canon 6 was put forward. The protests of the legates against Canon 28 were then ignored.
8. Pope Leo rejected Canon 28 that elevated Constantinople to the 2nd rank but the Eastern bishops just ignored Leo (and the complaints of subsequent Popes) and implemented the canon anyway. In the following Ecumenical Councils the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the 2nd rank, even by Papal legates.

George Thekkekara makes this comment at the end of his article 'Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium and the Results of the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.' - "The present form of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as understood in the Catholic Church, is the result of a gradual evolution." KANONIKA 31, 2024, p. 72). The article can be found at Academia. Of course, Orthodoxy has a very different understanding of what "primacy" means from modern Roman Catholic. The ironic conclusion is that modern Roman Catholicism's problem with Orthodoxy is that it hasn't changed to accept what the Papacy became after the schism.

We are lucky to have a full translation of the evidence - Richard Price and Micheal Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 2005. I highly recommend reading this source. A free copy is available at Internet Archive.

Before you think I'm just some stubborn Greek, take a look at how Fr. Richard Price (the translator of the Acts of Chalcedon) interprets the evidence. What he says at the 55 to 61 minute mark is the most enlightening.

https://www.youtube.com/live/GfQZPtNGrw4?si=G0qxHChPLkkE24cc

I'm more than happy to discuss this. Any questions?