r/DebateACatholic

Hi! I've been catholic for about 1 and a half years so far, with my ups and downs as normal. However, recently I dove into the history of Juan Diego and the related marian apparition, and I find all the supposed properties of the image of our Lady of Guadalupe to be messy, without reliable sources and plenty of disinformation. From baffling supernatural characteristics (pupil dilation, absence of decay, eye reflection, lack of brush strokes, unknown pigments, etc, etc etc.) to all being a hoax with totally opposing findings.

Everything is so confusing and I haven't found any official report of any sort. What is going on?

If the miracle ends up being falsified (therefore skeptic findings being true), wouldn't it severely undermine the credibility of the Church?

We shall move to the first way as the lesser of the two understandings that may aid in diffusing the tremendous damage the phrase, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me”, has caused.

This instrument is not familiar with the day-to-day living, the means of worship, and the sociological description of the times of the teacher known as Jesus. Suffice it to say that as now, then also, the more learned was the teacher, the more complex and sophistic his rationalizations might be. The teacher known as Jesus wished a return to simplicity, and a turn to the realization of the unity of all things, a calling to all of the children of the Creator.

Jesus did not agree, nor accept, the pluralistic ways, the negatively oriented hints which characterized the theology and the teachings of the teachers of his own religion, which was Judaism.

Jesus never asked to be elite; he asked only to be a servant, and he related to others as teacher and servant, not being authoritative, except by the authority that was heard and could not be ignored within his tone of voice, mode of expression, and knowledge of those prophetic writings, holy works and sophistic, argumentative commentary which at his time pervaded his religion.

As is almost always the case, it was through intense examination of his own religion, through active, day-by-day immersion in the belief systems of that religion, with all of its faults, its idiosyncrasies, and all of those things which he considered to be wrong, that he became aware that he had been born in order to express a channeling, in order to learn how to be of service in the deepest way open to him personally.

He was given insight and vision through his contact with his Father. This humble servant called himself the son of man, not the son of God. He repeatedly said, “When you hear me, you hear not me, but the Father within.” He said this many, many more times than is repeated in your holy works. He said this every time he spoke, just as we say to you we are your servants, we are your teachers, any truth which comes, comes through us, and through this instrument. We are not wise, we are students of the great mystery. So too, was the teacher known as Jesus.

The name of the Creator, within his religion, bore a great deal of resemblance to the word we use so often, that is, consciousness. The Creator’s name, never spoken aloud, simply meant, “I AM I AM,” or, “I AM because I AM,” or, “I AM that I AM.” I AM. This is the Old Testament Creator. This is a concept of great promise, great authority, full of nuances and mystery, and there was indeed a large body of Jewish mystics, which line exists to this very day.

As a mystic, Jesus attempted to express the nature of redemption as being a surety of consciousness, a bonding with that Creator which could withstand the threat of death, for eternity was more important to the teacher known as Jesus than this little life, but he knew what it took to embrace eternity, and as teachers do, he attempted to use that which he had, the name of the one infinite Creator most familiar to those whom he was teaching.

I AM, I AM. I AM the Way. Identification with the Creator, the Way. I AM, the Creator, the Truth. I AM, the Creator, the Life. Stand up and be counted, for until you know I AM, you shall not come to I AM. Faith comes first. To think that this teacher meant that it considered itself a human doorway is a potentially wholly destructive distortion of that which was meant by the teacher known as Jesus.

You will note that we do not deny that Jesus was the Son of the Infinite One. We do not deny Jesus the Christ. We meet the challenge that this instrument offers. To us, Jesus is Lord, and by Jesus we mean that which cannot be spoken, that is beyond our words, but that is the one infinite Creator.

Let us call it love. Let us say love is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by love. This is a New Testament change, which would have been acceptable to the one known as Jesus, for to Jesus his experience of his beloved Father was love given and love received. Difficult things were asked of this man, but this man was a channel with great determination and greater faith. He was speaking to entities who were very simple people. He spoke to them in words that left nuances, aromas, questions to ponder, but simple ones. Those of his own time knew the name that could not be spoken. Jesus \\\[inaudible\\\] spoke half of it.

That is the first way of understanding this phrase. It was a simple teaching. It was the preaching of faith, which leads us to the second portion of the meaning of these words, and why they are not the only words that lead to eternity, but merely words which show the intensity, the devotion, the worship, the surrender; the love, and the desire to serve the Creator by serving each other.

All paths of service, if they be positive, full of love and light, harmless to all, are helpful to those who are comfortable with that particular story or way of bridging the gap between present and infinite. Jesus indicated the intensity necessary for a life in faith successfully to move from the mundane world into an arching bridge connected with eternity.

Those who call themselves
Christians, and go to church once a week, are as little likely to be able to graduate into the next density as those who have no path at all, but simply are looking, and testing and trying, and thinking, and mulling, and refusing to make a commitment that leads to surrender of the smaller self, in order to make room in the earthen vessel that is your body for the expansive and loving self that you truly are, the self that is Christed.

That which is called religion works as a tool to polarize, purify, and discipline the seeker, not only one day a week, but every day. Better is the path which is alive in faith and service and worship that has been created by Jesus himself, but that includes the forgiveness of self, the forgiveness of all others, an adoration and worship of the Creator, and a surrender to the Creator-self within, the self that is you but is a deeper and still unknown part of 'you'.

As an Orthodox Christian I've always found the Roman claim to be the "Mother Church" to be strange. Jerusalem is clearly the mother church.

Rome claims to have have sent out missionaries (like the Seven Apostles of Gaul) around the West. Even this claims seems to be a bit dubious. But I'm not sure why the term "Mother Church" applies to the East.

I know that St. John Lateran in Rome has the inscription “Mother and Head of all the Churches in the City and the World” at its entrance but I'm not sure when it dates from.

It is used in Canon 4 of the Lateran Council of 1215

"4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins

Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church’s honour...Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God’s church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice."

Why on earth would the people of the Byzantine Empire see Rome as 'their mother"?

What I'm interested in are the earliest usage of the term. Anyone know anything?

I’m Christian but not Catholic but I was watching Young Sheldon and Sheldons family is Baptists and he was asking his Catholic friend about his faith. the friend said he prays to Jesus, God and Mary and Sheldon said “you don’t believe Jesus is God?” and the Catholic friend said “no. he’s the Son of God.” is this true? obv I believe that Jesus is the Son of God and also God himself but is this not what Catholics believe? Di Catholics believe Jesus is not God or was this a misunderstanding of catholic theology by the show runners?

In Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 and 9:10, it discusses how the dead know nothing. Would this not contradict 2 Maccabees 15:11-16 where Onias is seen praying for the Jews?

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6 and 9:10 say that the dead know nothing. I understand how this changed after Jesus, since He freed the souls from Sheol. However, in 2 Macc 15:11-16, Onias is seen offering prayers for those still living. While this corresponds to Catholic belief regarding saints, I do not understand how we can reconcile Onias offering prayers after he passed away and was presumably in Sheol, with Ecclesiastes stating that those in Sheol do not know anything. How can those in Sheol pray (showing knowledge and activity), when they are also stated elsewhere in Scripture to be sluggish or asleep and have no knowledge of anything?

Christianity teaches that God desires all to be saved. Catholicism teaches that Mary, through a special grace, was permitted by God to be without original sin and to be capable of never sinning. It also teaches that despite that, Mary still had free will, active virtue, and the ability to love God.

If God wishes all to be saved, why did God selectively apply such a grace to only one woman instead of all people or, at the very least, anyone upon Catholic Baptism?

It would not guarantee salvation for all.

It would make salvation far more attainable for many.

EDIT:

One commenter tried to assert that it is already possible for people to avoid sin for their entire lives by God's grace. They tried to justify this by saying Trent says that it is possible for man to follow all of God's commands.

The Council of Trent also literally says that the very idea/proclamation that anyone can abstain from sin for their entire life without the *same* grace given to Mary is, itself, also anathema. As shown in the second half of this paragraph

"CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema." (source: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/trent/sixth-session.htm)

So the very source you cite says - paradoxically - that God's commandments are possible for the justified to observe. And also impossible to observe forever in practice.

The way Catholicism likes to get around this is to say that each individual sin is possible to avoid, even though overall you *cannot* avoid sin eventually. Which is a paradox.

Which brings us back to this question - why does this loving God not give such graces to the children?

Hello friends, I am a non-demominational believer and have been looking at different websites of various denominations.

I found this prayer for an end to the Russia-Ukraine War on a Vatican website and have many questions about the use of 'Mary' or 'Mother' where 'God' is what I'm used to seeing in prayers, but I'll just ask about the opening

> O Mary, Mother of God and our Mother, in this time of trial we turn to you.  As our Mother, you love us and know us: no concern of our hearts is hidden from you. Mother of mercy, how often we have experienced your watchful care and your peaceful presence!

most particularly

> no concern of our hearts is hidden from you. 

and

> how often we have experienced your watchful care and your peaceful presence

So, my question is twofold -- why is this prayer to Mary instead of God, and what scriptural basis is there for asserting Mary can examine people's hearts like God?

In my understanding of Catholicism let alone the Bible I dont see where she is considered part of the trinity with the power to examine our hearts and care for us like God.

On a side note, I think the prayer itself is beautifully worded; I just don't understand why there is so much glorification in it to Mary, or why it's addressed to her in general.

Thanks in advance!

Edit: I know this is a debate sub, so I suppose I'm prepared to debate why I think parts of it don't make sense and would like to hear from those to whom it does make sense.

If you don't adhere to papal authority, you are not Catholic. Point, blank, and period. The SSPX crowd want to have their cake and eat it too where they get to disobey the holy father and still call themselves a part of his church. It's funny and ironic how in the SSPX's attempt to bring back tradition, they abandon it entirely by acting as if they can abandon their obligations to the Vatican.
In the olden days, yes the church held to many different things than they do today. And one of those things is that rejecting papal authority wasn't tolerated or given second chances. If SSPX gets excommunicated and you can happily call yourself a part of that, then that's basically the same as saying that the church no longer exists because you no longer recognize the divine authority of the pope. If you can handle being a walking contradiction like that then by all means, go ahead.
May god be with you fake Catholics. There is no Catholicism without the Pope. I've never seen such confused people in my life.

One thing that has always puzzled me is how polarized discussions about Catholic traditionalism have become. Too often, every criticism of the SSPX or of certain traditionalist movements is dismissed as "modernism," while every defense of Vatican II is portrayed as a rupture with the Church's past. I don't think either position reflects the Church's own understanding.

First, I want to make an important distinction: not every traditional Catholic is an SSPX supporter, and not every critic of Vatican II belongs to the SSPX. Likewise, not every supporter of Vatican II embraces the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II." These distinctions matter.

Benedict XVI's Hermeneutic of Continuity

Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was not simply a pope commenting on Vatican II decades later. He was one of the Council's theological experts (peritus) and spent much of his academic life explaining how the Council should be interpreted.

In his famous address to the Roman Curia (22 December 2005), Benedict XVI rejected both extremes:

the "hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture", which sees Vatican II as creating a completely new Church;

and the opposite tendency of freezing the Church in one historical period as though authentic Catholicism ended at Trent or before the Council.

Instead, he proposed the "hermeneutic of reform in continuity."

That principle remains, in my opinion, the best framework for understanding the Council.

The Church Has Always Developed

Many people seem to forget that Catholic history is a history of development.

The Council of Trent itself was a response to one of the greatest crises in Christian history. Martin Luther initially sought reform within the Church before the conflict eventually became an irreversible separation.

Likewise, Vatican II did not appear out of nowhere. It emerged from decades of Catholic biblical scholarship, liturgical renewal, patristic studies, Thomistic renewal (ressourcement), Catholic social teaching after Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum (1891), and extensive theological work by Catholic bishops and theologians.

Recognizing this historical development does not mean rejecting Tradition. It means understanding that Tradition is living.

As St. John Henry Newman argued in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, authentic doctrine develops while preserving its identity.

The Problem Is Ecclesiology, Not Latin

Personally, I have no objection to Latin, Gregorian chant or the Traditional Latin Mass.

My concern is ecclesiology.

The issue becomes serious when groups begin to reject the ordinary Magisterium, question ecumenical councils, or perform episcopal consecrations without papal mandate despite explicit requests from the Holy See.

At that point the discussion is no longer about liturgical preference.

It becomes a question of communion with the Church.

Catholic Social Teaching Is Also Part of Tradition

Another point often forgotten is that Catholic Tradition includes the Church's social teaching.

Beginning with Leo XIII, continuing through Pius XI, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, the Church has consistently criticized both revolutionary socialism and unrestricted economic liberalism.

This is often overlooked.

Some traditionalist circles strongly emphasize the Church's condemnations of Marxism while giving far less attention to its equally strong critiques of economic exploitation, excessive inequality, unjust wages, and unrestricted capitalism.

That balance is part of Catholic Tradition as well.

Charismatic Renewal and Traditionalism

Even debates about the Catholic Charismatic Renewal are often oversimplified.

Some traditional Catholics criticize charismatic spirituality because they believe it borrows excessively from Pentecostal worship styles.

Others defend it as a legitimate spirituality fully recognized by successive popes.

Again, the central question is not personal preference.

The central question is communion with the Church and fidelity to the Magisterium.

Conclusion

For me, the debate is not about choosing between Vatican II and Trent.

Nor is it about choosing between Latin and the vernacular.

The real question is whether we interpret Catholic Tradition through rupture or through continuity.

Ironically, some groups that accuse Vatican II of creating a rupture sometimes adopt the very "hermeneutic of rupture" Benedict XVI warned against.

If Benedict XVI's theology is taken seriously, then authentic Catholic Tradition cannot be separated from communion with Peter, the living Magisterium, and the Church's continuous development throughout history.

Suggested academic references

Pope Benedict XVI (2005). Address to the Roman Curia (Hermeneutic of Reform in Continuity).

St. John Henry Newman. An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Pope Leo XIII. Rerum Novarum (1891).

Pope Benedict XVI. Caritas in Veritate (2009).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Libertatis Nuntius (1984).

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Libertatis Conscientia (1986).

Vatican II: Lumen Gentium, Dei Verbum, Sacrosanctum Concilium, Gaudium et Spes.

Hello my catholic friends. I am hoping to hear some convincing arguments and positions about the eucharist. This has me intrigued (non denominational protestant here).

Superficially, I can understand the idea of transubstantiation and the eucharist being the actual body and blood of Jesus. What I dont understand is why it is necessary for a priest to perform a ritual. In other words if we celebrate communion as Protestants, and where two or more gather there Jesus is, then how is it different from a communion I take in my non denominational church? A pastor offers me the blood and body of Christ, Jesus is present, why is he not physically present in the bread and wine? Moreover when I read Hebrews it seems to conflict with the idea that the eucharist is offered as a sacrifice. I dont want to misrepresent so maybe you can help me understand your position better. Thanks!

(Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) Hebrews 11:1

Faith is the assurance of receiving what you hope for through Jesus. Jesus, is our hope because of what He offers, salvation.

This is reiterated 5 verses later.

(And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.) Hebrews 11:6

To draw near to Him, you must believe He will reward you if you seek Him. To have assurance of that reward from Jesus.

I talk to many catholics and protestants. Many protestants, not all, can attest to having full faith/assurance of receiving the Hope, Jesus. They often point to 1 John 5:13 to back up that position.

(I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.)

They trust in Jesus and trust that they have eternal life through Him. The catholics call this presumption, the Bible calls it faith.

The catholics have anathematized this faith by saying

"If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary for every man to believe with certainty and without any hesitation arising from his own weakness and indisposition that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema."

The Catholic Church historically teaches that, while a believer can have a "moral hope" in God's mercy, claiming absolute, infallible certainty of one's own final salvation is considered the sin of presumption.

These statements are sinful and make one devoid of the faith in Christ the Bible calls for. As Hebrews 11:1 says (Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for)

We are called to go beyond hope to the assurance of that hope. To truly trust in Jesus alone for salvation.

Today, the results are telling. Protestants have the assurance of things hoped for. Catholic have no assurance of things hoped for. Its all "maybe" or "if." They die hoping they will go to heaven, and that hope is still not faith. They are looking to their weakness or works instead of to Christ.

Many will stand before God and say "did we not do this work and that work" trying to justify themselves by works. Some protestants wouldn't do that, we don't believe works play any role in our salvation. However, catholics would proclaim such things to God since you do teach works justify.

God would not lay half your sins on Jesus and make Him suffer for them. He completes you. He doesn't go halfway.

(And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.) Philippians 1:6

Your understanding of some Bible verses undermine legitimate faith, so you will not be saved.

Here are the canons on the Papacy from the Ecumenical Councils. They offer almost no support for a Papacy that operates like the Post-schism Papacy of today. The most glaring omissions are the lack of reference to the Petrine prooftexts and a total absence of the notion of ex cathedra or infallibility.

Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

The ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained, according to which the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these places since a similar custom exists with reference to the bishop of Rome. Similarly in Antioch and the other provinces the prerogatives of the churches are to be preserved. In general the following principle is evident: if anyone is made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, this great synod determines that such a one shall not be a bishop. If however two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum01.htm

Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople (381 AD)

Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum02.htm

Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD

Following in every way the decrees of the holy fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out–the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome — we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equalling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

I know Pope Leo rejected this canon but the modern Papacy accepts it (and the East accepted it almost immediately. In subsequent Ecumenical Councils Constantinople was always ranked second)

The lack of Ecumenical validation for the Papacy means Roman Catholic apologists resort to three tactics.

1. Try to turn statements in the minutes of councils into some kind significant dogmatic statements. The most common is the short phrase "Peter has spoken through Leo" at Chalcedon. Almost always the full acclamation is never quoted. It goes like this:

"This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe." Acts of Chalcedon, session 2

The fuller version makes the Papacy seem less unique at the council.

The other is this statement from Philip the Presbyter (one of the Papal legates) at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD

(31) Philip, presbyter and legate of the apostolic see, said: ‘It is doubtful to no one, rather it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, the leader and head of the apostles, the pillar of the faith, and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of heaven from our Lord Jesus Christ the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and was given the power to bind and unloose sins,” and that he lives and performs judgement, until now and always, through his successors. In accordance with this system, his successor and representative, our holy and most blessed pope Bishop Celestine, has sent us to this council as substitutes for his presence, a council that [was convoked] by the most Christian and most philanthropic emperors, who keep in mind and always protect the catholic faith, and who have protected and protect the apostolic teaching handed down to them till this day by their most pious and most philanthropic fathers and grandfathers of holy memory.” Taking thought for the council, as we have said already, they have decreed that the catholic faith, which has been protected from ages past til this day, should continue as before, unshaken. Nestorius, the author of the new distortion and the fountain head of the evil, when summoned and cited, as we have learnt from the conciliar proceedings, scorned to come to trial according to the ordinances of the fathers and the discipline of the canons, even though he ought to have offered himself spontaneously to so great and holy an assembly, in order to receive spiritual healing and recover health. But when summoned to the holy council, as I have already said, canonically and according to the discipline of the canons, he refused to attend, since he has a cauterized conscience, [even though he was aware] that not only the extension granted by the apostolic see but many intervals of time had passed. It was therefore a secure judgement, when (regarding one who in a hostile spirit and with an impious tongue dared to blaspheme against our Lord Jesus Christ) in a decree of all the churches (since they took part together in this priestly assembly, through those present and through legates from the church in both East and West) the priests present for this reason, following the ordinances of the fathers, and the present holy council issued a decree against the rash blasphemer, and delivered a sentence to the effect that he who did not respect correction has his lot with the one of whom it was said, “His episcopacy let another take.” Therefore let Nestorius know that he is banished from the communion of the priesthood of the catholic church.’ Richard Price, The Acts of Ephesus, Liverpool University Press, 2020, p. 378.

Philip makes statements that an unsuspecting observer might think are more important than they really are. For example, Philip refers to Rome as THE Apostolic See which is curious as the East was FULL of Apostolic Sees. It was commonly thought that the keys and the power to loose and bind were the same and applied to all the Apostles. Likewise all bishops were seen as protectors of the catholic faith and judges. At Ephesus 250 bishops judged Nestorius. The Papal legates came to judge but so did everyone else.

I have also been told that the bishops at Ephesus not shouting Philip the Presbyter down when he spoke means they totally accepted everything he said (and with the same meaning). I find that interpretation rather tenuous.

Interestingly, Pastor aeternus cites Philip the Presbyter's comments at the Council of Ephehus as evidence for Papal infallibility.

2. Another approach is to reject or minimise Canon 28 of Chalcedon. The letters of complaint from Pope Leo are immediately brought forward. What is often neglected is that Rome had already accepted the canons of Constantinople I in 382, including Canon 3, and that the entire East accepted Canon 28, regardless of Leo's rejection. The Eastern bishops didn't care that Leo was unhappy. In the subsequent Ecumenical Councils attended by Roman legates (Constantinople II in 553, Constantinople III in 680 and Nicaea II in 787) the Patriarchs of Constantinople were honoured with the 2nd rank as specified in Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Rome "officially" accepted Canon 28 at the Lateran Council of 1215. Conveniently, Constantinople had recently been conquered by the Latins and a Papal yes man had been installed as Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Chieti statement from 2016 from the Roman Catholic Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity makes it clear that the Pentarchy, with Constantinople in 2nd place, was normative.

This is clearly expressed in section 15. "Between the fourth and the seventh centuries, the order (taxis) of the five patriarchal sees came to be recognised, based on and sanctioned by the ecumenical councils, with the see of Rome occupying the first place, exercising a primacy of honour (presbeia tes times), followed by the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, in that specific order, according to the canonical tradition."

https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/en/dialoghi/sezione-orientale/chiese-ortodosse-di-tradizione-bizantina/commissione-mista-internazionale-per-il-dialogo-teologico-tra-la/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese1.html

3. Papal Letters

The final tactic is to give Papal letters dogmatic significance. The Tome of Leo and Agatho's two letters (one to the Emperor and one to the Council) are often seen as key evidence for Papal claims.The Fathers at the councils were interested in the theological content of the letters and not anything else. The reading of Agatho's letters, for example, did not imply that they agreed with everything Agatho said. The reading was not an endorsement. Agatho can say Rome has been 100% totally consistent in defending truth but then the council can turn around and condemn Pope Honorius for heresy. Too often Roman Catholics think just because a letter was read or nobody complained it implied a total acceptance. As a side note, it is often neglected that Agatho spoke for the synod of 120 bishops who met at Rome prior to the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Conclusion

Neither the canons, the minutes or the Letters presented at Ecumenical Councils are seen as infallibility. That honour goes to the Dogmatic Decrees of the Council and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The canons do hold a certain authority too as they are corporate documents. The various letters and documents are important because many are written by saints. No one thinks the minutes have any dogmatic significance.

For Orthodoxy, the Seven Ecumenical Councils give no support for the Popes being unique divinely appointed successors of Peter with unilateral authority and infallibility.

Thoughts?

Peace to all,

Mystics are those who can unite all as one in being from the common denominators of all faith beliefs systems which is the spirit and in Catholicism The Spirit is The Holy Family "Sophia" Powers from combined Personal Gods in being preexisting in souls proving all Gods from preexistence becoming from The Father through the Mother for The Son becoming through the Christ for all mankind becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

As Catholic we do not want to question teh Faith of teh Moses seat, OMNiLogic just trusts nd verifies teh Logic from the Wondrous Mysteries in teh Catholic Faith becoming again for all in Oen God in being a Family.

And each God is equal in the Powers of God and separately Gods in being preexisting in uncreated souls proving all Gods from preexistence from The Father through the Mother for the Son becoming in the Christ, Lord and God from the Incorruptible Spirit through the Immaculate flesh becoming in One Sanctified Incorruptible and Transformed Immortal Body through the Christ for all mankind becoming reborn and saved from the cross becoming again for all Creation re-imaged and Transfigured in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

OMNiLogicalGod is the same Spirit God resurrecting life through logic from faith, From the same God from the Faith of Abraham and Saint Peter and Saint Paul deliver faith to the faithless in Corinth. Stephen Andrew delivers the OMNiLogical Light from the Mind of the Holy Family of Gods becoming alive and living in all mankind through the flesh from the spirit for the created souls of all mankind becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

From the logical formulas through the Wondrous Mysteries in the Catholic Faith we become to logically see transformation for the created failed becoming through immortality from incorruption becoming glorified in One Body becoming again Transfigured for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

Peace always,

Stephen

If it could, then why did God sent Jesus?

Was the lamb sacrifice not enough for atonement for sins?

The Byzantine Lists has been out of print for 25 years and deserves to be reprinted. Kolbaba analyses a dozen Byzantine polemical texts to look at the accusations they made against the Roman Church in the early centuries after the schism. Some of the texts are from competent theologians while others are from semi-literate ‘populists’ who are more interested in the number of differences rather than their importance (many of which are cultural differences). If you are interested in Orthodox/Roman Catholic relations during the 11th to 13th centuries then give this book a look.

These are the texts

1. Photios (text dated to early 867) - Encyclical to the Eastern Sees
2. Michael Keroularios, Patriarch of Constantinople (text dated to 1054) - Letter to Peter II, Patriarch of Antioch
3. First Anonymous (text dated after 1054) - The Things which are done and taught by the Franks contrary to the Orthodox Faith
4. John II, Metropolitan of Kiev (text dated to 1080)  Letter to Clement, Pope of Old Rome
5. Theophylact of Bulgaria (text dated to 1090) - Treatise on Those who Accuse the Latins
6. John of Claudiopolis (text dated to 1100) - On the Azymes
7. Niketas Seides - On the Many Differences Regarding the Law
8. Opusculum contra Francos (text dated before 1178)
9. Konstantinos Stilbes (text dated to 1204) - The Faults of the Latin Church, Dogma, Scriptures and Many Other Matters
10. Anonymous (text dated after 1277) - Dialogue of Panagiotes with an Azymite
11. Pseudo-Athanasius (II of Alexandria) (text dated 1276) - Letter to All Christians
12. Meletios Homologetes Galesiotes (text dated between 1266-1280) - Poem Against the Latins
13. Second Anonymous (text dated 1281) - The Heresies of the Franks and Their Neighbours

Tia Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. pp. 173-183.

Kolbaba also has a list of the most popular accusations by Byzantine Polemicists. Here is the list in the order that Kolbaba sets out in her book;

1. Fasting on the Sabbath
2. Eating Unclean Foods
3. They use unleavened bread (azymes) in the Eucharist
4. Not Accepting married priests
5. Adding the filioque to the Creed
6. Not fasting properly during Lent
7. Baptising Incorrectly (mostly not having confirmation but some claiming baptism by one immersion)
8. They permit marriage within forbidden degrees
9. Their monks eat lard and meat
10. They do not chant the Alleluia during Lent
11. Bishops and priests fight in battles
12. They do not revere icons
13. Their bishops wear rings
14. They do not revere the Virgin Mary
15. They trace a cross on the ground and then walk on it
16. They make the sign of the cross incorrectly
17. They kiss people instead of giving them communion
18. They celebrate more than one Eucharist per day per altar, per church, or per priest
19. Their priests save
20. They bury people improperly
21. They have insufficient reverence for the altar and the sanctuary
22. Their clergy dress improperly
23. They sit when they should stand during the liturgy and they talk to one another even at the holiest comments

24.They do not respect the Greek Fathers Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, and John Chrysostom

25. They do not fast weekly on Wednesday, and their Friday fast is not sufficiently rigorous

26. They have added the phrase “with the Holy Spirit” to the Gloria

27. They perform the entire Mass during Lent

28. They perform the rite of ordination only four times a year

29. They practice “Judaic” purifactory rites

30. They say that God must be praised only in Hebrew, Greek and Roman

31. They do various unseemly things during the week before Easter (Holy Week)

Tia Kolbaba, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. pp. 189-202.

As you can see there are a wide variety of accusations. Some of them important. Some of them less important. Some of them erroneous. There were many individual treatises on the Filioque and the Aymes (unleavened Eucharistic bread). It took a while for Byzantine theologians to realise the Post-Schism Papacy was an issue so that was added in the 14th century or took the form of letter exchanges between the Pope and the Patriarchs of Constantinople (such as the Patriarch John X Camaterus and Pope Innocent III).

Three observations

1. The main criticism of Roman Catholic baptismal practice is that they don’t chrismate straight after baptism. 
2. Eight of the texts studied by Kolbaba accuse Roman Catholics of baptising with one immersion (starting with Michael Cerularius, where they all probably got it from) but none of the Byzantine polemicists ever accused the Roman Catholics of being unbaptised. Curiously enough, there is NO actual external evidence that Roman Catholics in the 11th, 12th or 13th centuries ever baptised by a single immersion and none of the authors ever claim to be an eyewitness. Scholars are still wondering where it came from. 
3. There is no criticism of baptism by pouring (it never comes up) even though evidence suggests Roman Catholics were regularly doing that in the 13th century.

You can access the book here

KOLBABA, T., Byzantine Lists, 2000 | PDF 

And here - you will need to set up an account with Internet Archive

The Byzantine lists : errors of the Latins : Kolbaba, Tia M., 1963- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive 

Before Roman Catholics get too triumphalist there are similar lists circulating among you. My favourite is from the 16th century Latin community of Cyprus that has 78 items in its list.

Anyone read it?

Any comments or thoughts? Anything you would like to add to the list?

I’m an adult cradle Catholic who took Catholicism seriously at a younger age. I took the truth of the religion for granted and dismissed atheïsm and other non-Christian religions as false. As I was growing up I got more exposure to other religions and atheist points of view, but these did not stop my faith.

More recently I read up on modern Bible scholarship especially on early Christianity and ancient Hebrew religion. I learned that the Gospels were actually not written by the evangelists they were named after and no one knows who the actual authors were.

Mark, the oldest Gospel was written around the destruction of the Second Temple 40 years after the crucifixion. St Paul was not familiar with the ministry of Jesus. He actually clashed with the apostles because he was spreading a different doctrine to the Gentiles. The only authority we have is the Church.

Moreover there is no proof to the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon. Their stories were written in the 2nd century BC in the Hellenistic era. The only authority is the Jewish priestly and scribal class who were themselves created by instigation of the Persian overlords (this is recounted in the book of Ezra)

This got me thinking. Why are gentiles required to believe in this Jewish God? Imagine you were born in a culture that worships nature. You have a concept of an afterlife, but for you it’s just a place that your ancestors go to when they die. Then all of a sudden Christian missionaries start to appear claiming that your ancestors are actually in hell, demanding that you have to eat the meat and drink the blood of their diety so that you will avoid ending up in the same place as your ancestors. Why would you believe in this foreign religion?

Some might call it presumption. The Bible calls it faith.

(Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) Hebrews 11:1

This is reiterated 5 verses later.

(And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.) Hebrews 11:6

If you seek after God, you must believe He will reward you to draw near to Him.

Faith is the assurance of receiving what you hope for through Jesus. Jesus, is our hope because of what He offers, salvation.

To truly have faith in Him, you must believe He will reward you. To have assurance in that Hope.

How is it that you teach that you can have faith in every other promise of God, but not this one?

(And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life.) 1 John 2:25

And again, a few verses later

(And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming.) 1 John 2:28

When He appears, we should have absolute confidence in Him, and not shrink back at all.

I have this faith, this confidence, that through the blood of Jesus, I shall be accepted. This is not to brag or boast. Nothing in my hands I bring, only to the cross I cling, and I have faith in Him.

Do you have the assurance of things hoped for, do you trust in His promise of eternal life, do you have the confidence in Him to not shrink back at His coming?

Here are some final verses.

(I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life.) 1 John 5:13

(Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”) John 11:25-26

Me siento estancada en mi vida, pasé una etapa que me dejó pensando;¿quién soy en realidad?, todas esas ideas, prejuicios, "gustos", en realidad¿Son míos? La verdad es que no, yo siempre he sabido que me gusta, que no me gusta, que creó, en qué no creó, tengo valores que nadie me enseñó simplemente mi ser siempre me ha dicho con que estoy a gusto. Con el tiempo me volví de cierta forma por encajar, lo cual se me hace algo súper difícil, porque para que la gente no te vea como "tonta" tienes que ser una mujer "cabrona" que no se deja pero creo es muy mal interpretada esa idea, porque yo no creo que tenga que ser mala mujer. Soy alguien con carácter no por enojarme mucho, sino soy firme a las decisiones que tomo y hasta eso olvidé. Porque me quisieran, porque me aceptarán deje de decir no cuando quería decir NO. Por miedo a que se alejaran por elegir mi integridad. Mi bienestar, lo aposté tanto hasta que perdí toda la capacidad de diferenciar entre mi ser y lo que me decia la gente que era correcto. Yo sé que es correcto para mí, tengo errores pero eso no quiere decir que sea una mala persona o haga las cosas mal siempre simplemente estoy aprendiendo a vivir, y me gusta vivir como yo me siento bien. Me gusta amar, cantar, dibujar, escribir, me encanta el rap, la poesía, ver las nubes, la luna y las estrellas. Me gusta hacer sentir bien a las personas que amo, no me importa su comportamiento, soy rencorosa pero no lo suficientemente para no perdonar, simplemente aún no sé cómo exactamente llegar a eso, pero aquí estoy con todas las ganas de aprender y de vivir. Gracias a Dios por todo. Tengo un problema con las drogas y a pesar de todo no sé cómo salir de ahí, me sugieren buscar ayuda psicológica o psiquiatrica pero la verdad es que... No creó eso me ayude, apesar de todas mis dudas, tengo la seguridad que estoy bien y estaré mejor comprendido las cosas a mi máxima capacidad porque así me siento con tanta esperanza en mi persona, con tanta fé en qué Dios existe y el cuida de mí, no importa lo que pasé aunque sea malo tan malo que sienta que no puedo, ahora sé que no estoy sola, porque creo en el poder del bien. Me inspiran las cosas hechas con y por amor, aún no sé bien cómo demostrarlo o como es que funciona pero sé que lo siento, es algo que siempre estuvo vacío y ahora hay algo que vibra dentro de mí. Es una luz que me hace sentir cosquillas, me estremece, me da vida y alegría no importa que tan mal o triste me sienta.

¿La biblia puede ayudarme a entender la espiritualidad? ¿Tiene que ver con religión el leer la biblia o solo es espiritual? Hay cosas que se me hacen muy extremas pero si es verdad todo lo que dice, quiero cambiarlo, tal vez no sea algo rápido o fácil pero me gustaría crecer en la gracia de Dios.

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.