u/PalpitationNew9559

Hello.

Recently, I've significantly limited my phone usage and haven't doomscrolled except for maybe two or so minutes on Youtube before realizing and throwing away my phone (Youtube really gets you with those shorts, so you start doomscrolling without even realizing it).

But within the past week I've started feeling a bit anxious, depressed, hopeless, and unable to focus. I didn't even think to consider the detox as the cause of it.

I figure this is normal, since I've heard the same from some other people on here, but I'm just asking just to make sure. Thanks!

(Also: I am on ADHD meds, but it's not a terribly high dosage and I haven't felt this way being on them until now.

Hello.

Roman Catholics often bring up the case of Victor I's attempt to excommunicate the quartodecimans of Asia to show that the pope had universal jurisdiction in the early church (pre-Nicene, to be specific). While bishops, along with St. Irenaeus, wrote to Victor I encouraging him not to go through with his decision, there was no indication that they believed he lacked the authority to carry it out.

There is also the case of St. Cyprian urging the pope to excommunicate Marcianus of Arles, despite him having been outside of Rome's jurisdiction.

I've heard from some Orthodox that this it's fairly common for bishops to exercise authority outside of their jurisdiction. Some might cite modern examples of this within the Eastern Orthodox church, but my question is whether we have concrete examples of this from bishops of sees besides Rome in early church history. If not, would these examples not be strange if the bishop of Rome lacked some special authority here? Thanks!

The twenty-first article of the Augsburg Confession states, “Scripture teaches not the invocation of saints or to ask help of saints, since it sets before us the one Christ as the Mediator."

This section simply does not make sense to me. Generally, Romans Catholics seek the help of saints by asking them for their prayers.

But how does asking the saints to pray for us go against Christ as the one mediator any more than asking someone on earth to pray for us? Melanchthon even affirmed that the saints in heaven pray for us when he said “just as, when alive, [the saints] pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general.”

Thanks!

Before I ask this: I am familiar with the arguments in favor of a literal reading of John 6 as pertaining to the eucharist (Jesus not correct his audience or the disciples, etc). I am not asking about them and I do think they hold weight, but I also see arguments in favor of a metaphorical reading which is why I do not hold an opinion on it currently.

The entire Gospel of John pertains to believing in Jesus for eternal life (John 3:16, John 5:24, John 20:31), and the context of John 6 also involves believing in Jesus (John 6:29, 6:40).

Given this context, for me it doesn't make much sense for Jesus up until this point to emphasize believing in him only to then talk about partaking in the eucharist. Based on this, it would make more sense to see John 6:53-56 as referring to belief in him (but again, as I've said above I'm aware of conflicting reasons why one might not take it that way).

So my question: does a eucharistic reading of John 6 fit the entire context of John's gospel?

Possibly the most popular passage brought up when discussing the real presence is John 6 (v. 48-58), specifically where Jesus says:

>^(53) Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. ^(54) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. ^(55) For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. ^(56) Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. (John 6:53-56 NIV)

The Protestant interpretation is that Christ was speaking metaphorically, and the Catholic response is that Christ couldn't have been because his audience interpreted it literally and yet he doesn't correct them, instead doubling down on what he had said:

>Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

Further, even his own disciples abandon him over this teaching (v. 60), which is the only recorded instance of them doing so in the gospels. Jesus could have corrected them as he does elsewhere (John 4:31-4, also see Matthew 16:11-12 where Jesus corrects his disciples over another bread metaphor).

So if Jesus wasn't being literal, why didn't he choose to correct anyone here? Thanks!

Basic question, but I've always wondered: how can James 5:16 be in reference to confessing to a priest if it says "one another"?

I get that the context mentions church elders, but if it says "one another" doesn't this suggest that the confession is mutual, leading to the absurd conclusion that the priest should confess his sins to the layperson? Thanks!