r/CatholicApologetics

▲ 9 r/CatholicApologetics+3 crossposts

I can't understand, it seems in contrast with the catholic doctrine to me.

I would like some clarification regarding a vision of hell experienced by Don Bosco. What struck me was that the Angel told him many had ended up there because, out of shame, they had not confessed impure sins committed during childhood. I wonder how this is possible. A child cannot possess full awareness; I do not understand how such acts can be considered mortal sins, serious enough to lead to hell if, upon growing up, one does not confess them.

In Saint Alphonsus's Compendium of Moral Theology, there is a statement addressing precisely this point: namely, that sins committed during childhood or adolescence —precisely because they were committed without full awareness— do not require confession.

Here is the text I read:

"He led me into a very deep cavern where those who had sinned against the Sixth Commandment —sins of impurity— were found. I asked him: 'Did they not confess?'"

'They did confess, but the sins of impurity were confessed incorrectly or deliberately omitted. For example: someone who had committed four or five sins of this kind claimed to have sinned only two or three times. Some had committed an impure act in childhood and were always too ashamed to confess it, or they confessed it incompletely or did not recount the whole story. Others still lacked repentance and contrition...'"

reddit.com
u/byf4ith — 5 days ago

Help.

So I’ve been diving deep into church history and the bible to help me settle my own recent split between Catholicism and EO. The biggest thing I found was that the papal supremacy didn’t show until the council of Chadeon everything before that like the first councils of Constantinople and nicaea were settled by a group of bishops along with the emperor. Only until the east was begging to have the pope sign off on the 26th? I think, Cannon. Only then was the pope actually needed in these councils this has been a huge turn in my faith and I’m questioning my Catholic faith…

reddit.com
u/DylanIsCatholic — 5 days ago
▲ 10 r/CatholicApologetics+3 crossposts

Desejo superar o modo de pensar da Esquizoanálise (Deleuze e Guattari). Se é que tem como... Sou um católico brasileiro.

Por favor, alguém poderia me ajudar a superar o modo de pensar da Esquizoanálise (Deleuze e Guattari)?!
Sou um católico brasileiro de 28 anos, reconvertido há uns 8 meses, após anos de um ateísmo prático buscando uma vida de sátiro dionisíaco do niilismo ativo. Sou cheio de dúvidas que julgo serem, em algum grau, legítimas. Pensadores como Bataille, Foucault, Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, Whitehead e Chardin acabam me fazendo flertar às vezes com o agnosticismo ou com outras religiosidades alternativas (peço para que tentem não demonizar tais filósofos e escolas, vide que sempre tento ser maduro e discernir o que dá pra salvar de verdadeiro de seus escritos).
Autores que me tornaram mais propensos ao ceticismo, pensamento crítico, humanismo social cristão (existencialismo cristão) e impossibilidade de posicionar-se com confiança do ponto de vista espiritual). Como manter a fé Cristã (seja católica ou até mesmo dentro de uma perspectiva gnóstica) após passar por esses caras? Estou no quarto ano do curso de psicologia, e tenho dificuldade de aceitar de bom grado o modus operandi escolhido por Deus, que às vezes beira masoquismo, exagero e falta de garantias (provas cabais para que eu me comprometa). Eu, se dependesse apenas de mim, escolheria que Deus fosse real - tenho necessidade e desejo disso (porém há tendências em mim que querem que ele seja extremamente misericordioso, com uma moral sexual mais flexível/relativista). Muito embora minha sede pela Verdade está disposta a me levar até onde as evidências mais razoáveis apontarem. Mesmo que a verdade seja a cosmovisão naturalista ateísta (niilismo cósmico). Não quero ser enganado, viver em função de uma mentira. Quero a verdade, somente isso, custe o que custar, mesmo que ela seja o pesadelo mais tenebroso e indigesto que possamos imaginar.
Há tantas dissonâncias dentro da própria Igreja que fica difícil saber em quem confiar e onde está Deus nisso tudo, qual grupo está menos errado. Se o Catolicismo tivesse uma voz uníssona, seria mais digno de crédito - eu confiaria com mais facilidade.

reddit.com
u/Boring-Natural-7704 — 7 days ago
▲ 10 r/CatholicApologetics+1 crossposts

SSPX rejects

https://www.americamagazine.org/news/2026/06/25/sspx-open-letter-vatican-ii/

  1. "The SSPX also rejected “the idea that non-Christian religions might reflect a ray of truth which illumines every man, or might be legitimate paths by which God positively leads men to salvation.”"
  2. "The society also rejected the concept of religious freedom, which, according to the Vatican II declaration “Dignitatis Humanae” (“Of the Dignity of the Human Person”), is regarded as a fundamental right.

Instead, the SSPX argued that heads of state have a “right and duty” to favor the Catholic Church and oppose other religions and “false forms of worship.”

I've been softly sympathetic to the orgnization, thinking they simply want to continue practices of the Church from prior to Vatican II.

But these points seem.... wrong.

The first cleanly rejects Thomas Aquinas, teaching that people outside the visible Church can know genuine truths. Since all truth comes from God, any true proposition discovered by other religions ultimately has God as its source.

This goes directly to Aquinas' formation of Natural Law, and why he freely borrowed concepts and ideas from ancient pagan philosphers.

This is a very old idea within the church, elements of it even go back to Ambrose of Milan and Augustine of Hippo. To reject it seems like a rejection of Tradition, an overeaction they're insisting on to "fix" something else.

The second point I can concede has a more historical basis, but there's a reason societies moved away from that model. To prevent wars over faiths. America explictly enshrined this so as to not have those wars carry over here, and Europe gradually has made patchwork adaptions doing the same. There are still favortist arrangements in the Old World, but generally, European countries will not persecute or in anyway injure someone just because they're of a different faith.

Is there anything where SSPX lays out what point #2 would be in practice? And is there anything where they try to reconcile #1 with Aquinas / natural law?

u/Sweet-Ant-3471 — 8 days ago

If Jesus' atonement was perfect, why do we still have to go to confession?

When Jesus was crucified, people said it was a perfect atonement for all sins. But why do we still have to repent and go to confession even though there's no more sins left?

reddit.com
u/Colguyev — 11 days ago
▲ 8 r/CatholicApologetics+2 crossposts

I made an easier to read version of Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. A lite but serious summary called FunCatDog.

I made a free Substack series called FunCatDog that goes through all 537 dogmas and theological theses in Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, one section at a time, in plain English, with the sources. 142 articles, complete from the existence of God to the end of the world. Table of contents here:

I find this book to be of immense value when I'm really wondering: where did the Church say that, and what level of "From the chair" did they really say about it?

https://whydidpetersink.substack.com/p/funcatdog-table-of-contents

u/No_Pilot3480 — 13 days ago