The Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, and The Orthodox all believe in the truth presence of the Eucharist, and all of them, including Methodists and Moravians believe in infant baptism.
**If you’re a new Catholic, you’ll probably notice that Luke 1:28 is often translated as “highly favored,” while Catholic translations traditionally say “full of grace.”**
**The Greek word is κεχαριτωμένη (*****kecharitōmenē***), a perfect passive participle related to *charis*, meaning grace. The perfect form points to something completed with an ongoing result.
So Gabriel isn’t merely saying, “God likes you” or “you’ve been favored.” The wording describes Mary as someone who has been graced and remains in that state of grace.
That doesn’t mean this one word proves every Marian doctrine by itself. But it does show why Catholics have traditionally seen something significant in Gabriel’s greeting.
So when you hear “Hail, full of grace”, remember: that’s not just a random Catholic wording. There is real Greek behind it.
Sounds like a downgrade in my opinion.
We are taught that Jesus appeared to his Disciples after His resurrection and later Ascended into Heaven.
I was teaching this to primary school children, who also had a keen interest in the planets.
Do we believe that the Ascension was a real or symbolic description?
When I was at school, the Voyager probes ware sent into space to observe Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. Even now, they're just leaving the frozen vacuum of our solar system.
Did Jesus pass through the journey? Or is it symbolic to say that Jesus went straight to heaven.
Así como en la primera venida de Jesús la mayoría de los sacerdotes, escribas y líderes religiosos del Sanedrín no lo reconocieron a pesar de tener las Escrituras, se plantea que en el cumplimiento de los tiempos la jerarquía eclesiástica (pastores y curas) vuelve a pasar por alto su cumplimiento por estar esperando manifestaciones distintas o terrenales.
This is not at it’s core an argument against the existence or immateriality of the soul. I am granting both for the sake of argument, but also provide a what-if scenario.
My thesis is pretty narrow: I have not encountered a non-circular demonstration that a subsisting immaterial soul is necessary to preserve numerical personal identity between death and resurrection.
Simply saying “the same person is raised because the same soul persists,” when the soul’s persistence is itself introduced to explain why the same person persists, introduces a circular continuity rather than demonstrating its necessity.
This is a call for examination of an isolated proposition; necessity (the immaterial soul’s function) rather than assertion (the idea that the soul subsists).
If the soul is said to be necessary because numerical identity requires a persisting subject, we need to independently establish that numerical identity requires continuous creaturely subsistence in the first place.
Before we even discover/debate an alternate bridge, there needs to be a demonstration that proves the traditionalist bridge is metaphysically necessary.
This isn’t an ask to reject Aquinas; I’m simply asking someone to use him carefully enough in order to inspect and identify where his conclusions come from. Let’s examine Aquinas upstream rather than debating within his downstream vocabulary.
To reiterate—I’m not asking for an argument proving immateriality, subsistence, incorruptibility, or even the assertion that a non-persistent creation would just be a copy during the resurrection; that only reveals the hidden assumption that created persistence is necessary for identity preservation—which leads us back to the very title of this post.
A thought experiment: What if the “who” is prior to the “what”?
“What am I?” concerns the ontology or constitution of the created human being.
“When do I exist?” concerns the creature’s temporal existence.
But “Who am I?” concerns the numerical reference to this particular individual.
What if (in Christian theism) the “who” is logically prior to the “what”?
I don’t mean that I literally existed before I was created. I mean that God eternally knows the particular individual whom He creates. My creaturely existence (self-awareness) has a temporal beginning; God’s knowledge of whom He creates (personal identity) does not.
If the “who” was never dependent upon continuous existence of the “what” for God’s reference to remain determinate, it becomes a redundancy error for some component of the “what” remain continuously existent through death to preserve the “who”.
Closing:
If God eternally knew whom He was creating before the creature existed, we cannot merely conclude that the destruction of the creature causes God to lose numerical reference to whom He intends to raise. The presence of an immaterial, subsistent soul needs to explain why it fills a gap that’s otherwise never been there. Humanity cannot fathom the idea of losing its self-awareness, yet the persistence of self-identity has always been eternally looking backwards within God’s relation, while creation temporally looks forwards after a finite actualization before its eternal forward gaze in the resurrection. What if our numeric identity never went from 0 to 1, but has always been 1? Identity isn’t the same category as creation—Paul doesn’t have to answer for “what remains” after death, he simply answers “who” is raised.
if the whole life of the apostles was about preaching the gospel, living a holy life, and evangelizing people. if we are called to be like Jesus, should we do what the apostles do and preach, do bible studies, and baptize people? why isn't this the focus of catholics. Catholics are often criticized for being not zealous, not living like a true Christian because they aren't sharing their faith and etc...I am coming from a Mainline Church of Christ point of view. This is my genuine question for Catholics and why me myself isn't catholic.
So, my friend said, hey! I went on holiday to Turkey. I went to Ephesus, where Mary is buried. I said, really? He said, yeah. He hot really mad for doubting him. I was there wasn't I he yelled! I said, well are you Catholic. He said, of course. Well, I said, do you believe in the infallibility of the Pope ... and he hesitated. I said, well to make it easier for you, if you don't believe that you'll be ex-communicated. He said, Ok, of course I believe that. Well, I said, the ONLY act of infallibity of the Pope has been the the Virgin Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven and so wasn't buried in Ephesus. It was interesting because I'd just come from Murree in Pakistan where Mary was also buried, and there are several graves in India.
So, what's your take on it?
I’m an Spanish 16 yo boy (sorry for English mistakes)
A long time ago I became friends with 4 girls because they treated me well when I had almost no one and since then they became very important to me and about a year ago I fell in love with one of them and I know that she loves me although probably not as a boyfriend but as a good friend and it turns out that this girl has a somewhat jealous and controlling boyfriend who does not like her to get together with other guys and many times despite being a long-distance teenage relationship he embitters her many nights with his messages and calls of jealousy and I am also afraid that I will take her away from me not only as a couple but as a friend because she is very important to me and now I don't know what to do because despite everything they are still together and I don't know what to do with all this I don't know why or how I should pray, I don't know if I should get away from her, I don't know if I should be disowned to be just a friend or if I should still trust and pray for her love because as St. Paul says to the Corinthians, love is patient and endures everything but he also says that it doesn't seek its own happiness and I don't know what I should do for her, for me and with God
This is not a rage bait question I’m just genuinely interested in common perception in the Catholic Church. I’m a Protestant and I personally believe that we are saved by fully putting our faith in Jesus and believing that he died and rose again so that are sins may be forgiven. I also believe that while baptism does not directly save us it is something that we should do in obedience to God as followers of Christ (I do believe all believers should be baptized) However I am interested in the sacraments. Why are the sacraments mandatory for salvation if we are already saved through Jesus’s death? I would agree that those who have been saved should live a life in accordance to that salvation but I believe our works/actions do not save us (and I’m aware Catholics do not believe they do I’m just curious how the sacraments coincide with that belief)
I often hear Galatians 5:6 quoted when catholics speak of salvation. That we are saved by faith working through love.
(For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.)
Reason 1 why this is false.
Paul, has this exact same line of thinking in the next chapter. He writes
(But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.) Galatians 6:14-15
Its the same sentence structure, but he replaced "faith working through love" with "a new creation."
Both of these things are describing what a Christian will do or be after having been saved, not how to get saved or maintain right standing with God.
Because we have been saved, we will be a new creation.
Because we have been saved, we will work out our faith through love.
NOT TO BE SAVED, but what will happen as a result.
Reason 2 why this is false.
Paul just said how we are not saved through the law, bit by faith in Christ.
(For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.) Galatians 5:1-4
The Pharisees were trying to convince the Galatians that they had to be circumcised and keep the Moaisic laws in order to be saved.
Paul said that if you accepted these teachings you would be obligated to keep the whole law if you accept circumcision.
If you make this the means of your justification rather than Christ alone, you would be severed from Christ and fallen from grace.
Paul, said this to those who would be justified by the law. 10 verses later, he defined the law.
(For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”) Galatians 5:14
So, the law is love. We are to uphold the law. The law is good. But, if you make the law the source of your justification before God, you would be falling away from grace and severed from Christ.
So, to read this and understand that the law is love, but then to immediately say we are justified by "faith working through love" misses the entire point. Those who follow God will uphold this law of love, but not for justification!!!!
Right after this sequence, Paul tells us how we anticipate righteousness.
(For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.) Galatians 5:5
As a side note, before I get comments about how this proves you can lose salvation, Paul makes this entire section a hypothetical by deliberately putting an if clause
"that if you accept circumcision"
Because he was already certain that the Galatians did not take this view.
(I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is.) Galatians 5:10
I’ve probably identified as a Christian since early this year but I’m struggling to accept and reconcile things around the age of Mary. I’ve asked this on other forums and some have tried to explain context and other people have been dismissive and said the following:
- God can do anything even if it is immoral. This statement shuts down any open dialogue about morality and whether it is contextual and even flexible. If we have a law written onto our hearts, why should we force ourselves to switch it off?
- Adolescence didn’t exist as a stage due to economic pressure - thereby making teens grow up faster. This does make sense, but to me this seems like they had a childhood taken from them, albeit not intentionally, but it still raises issues for me. For example, I see responses that we judge things by ‘modern standards’, and that this shouldn’t be applied to older times. This to me sounds like some form of moral relativism? Or am I mistaken?
- An opinion from me - the concept of what a child is being flexible is a great moral concern. I know that in Matthew causing one of these little ones to stray should result in consequences. But if now we would consider a 14-16 to be a child both mentally and physically, and all it takes is a use of term, then child marriage and pregnancy was easily justified then and no one saw an issue with it? To me, morality around treatment of children is a strong issue and should be taken seriously.
- I see Christians criticize Islam due to verses regarding age of Aisha - although I think some sources state she was actually around 16-19? I’m not educated on this area so apologies for any straw man’s or mistakes. But could it not be said that we are quick to critique moral issues in another faith, but fail to look at our own due to our bias? If we read the story about Mary in another religion, would we condemn it more so? And if this is the case, are we excusing otherwise morally questionable elements of our faith but ignoring it because it might mean facing an uncomfortable reality?
In the Bible, it speaks about faith being the assurance of things hoped for.
(Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) Hebrews 11:1
Everyone who ever had faith in the Bible that I could find was always looking to the fulfillment of a future event and trusting in God for it. They had the assurance of the future event happening.
Abraham trusted in God for future descendants. Sarah trusted in God for a future son. Joseph trusted in God for a future promised land. Moses trusted in God for a future reward. David had faith that the Messiah would come from his line.
(These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar) Hebrews 11:13
They could already see and great these things. They had the assurance of what they hoped for.
Its the same thing for Jesus, is it not?
Faith in Jesus in the New Testament is not merely believing a set of facts about something Jesus has already done. It also involves trusting God's promises concerning what Christ will accomplish for the believer.
Faith would include trusting God's promises concerning the future salvation, resurrection, and inheritance that Christ secures.
What faith is there in Christ if your not trusting in the future promise of salvation?
Even in the Bible, having faith in Jesus is not just about believing Him to be God, but trusting in His death and resurrection to deliver you.
(And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved) Acts 16:31
Believe on Jesus Christ FOR salvation. That thou shalt (future tense) be saved.
Given all the Biblical examples of faith, I do not understand how catholics have faith in Jesus.
You don't have the assurance of things hoped for as the Old Testament figures did. They knew they would recieve them, but through your doctrines, you don't know with certainty that you will recieve the hope of Jesus and salvation and redemption.
So, my question is, what does your faith involve if its not in the assurance of things hoped for?
How exactly do you have faith in Jesus at this very moment?
There’s a big article going around quoting lots of Popes and saints saying that not only are the vast, vast majority of people going to hell, the vast majority of Catholics are as well. So what’s the point of the church or any religion? Aren’t the atheists right that we should just enjoy ourselves and not care about anything since we’re all going to suffer for eternity anyway?
I hope my question doesn't upset anyone. I am a cradle Catholic who lost my faith when I became an adult. For 35 years I was an agnostic who desperately wanted to believe. I asked everyone with faith to pray for me to believe.
About six months ago I had a powerful dream in which I got the message that I would find faith not in my own comfort (through belief) but through comforting others. It felt extremely real, and I think that important message of service to others is consistent with Catholicism.
So I now believe in God and feel incredibly happy about that. I went to Mass for the first time in probably thirty years and got a lot out of it.
Is it ok that I don't know what my specific beliefs are other than a general belief in God as a loving creator? I love Jesus, but I can't say for sure if he is the son of God, or if the trinity is real, etc. I think there is a lot I won't understand in this life, but I also think God loves us all and would not reject a person who isn't sure about the details.
Again, I know there are many Catholics who feel the details are critical. I really want to be part of my Church's community and I don't want to be dishonest. I'd need to go to confession before really particicpating, and maybe that is a place to explore this question. Thanks to anyone who has a helpful response.
Speaking from my personal experience, as a lifelong Catholic I always loved the faith and prayer, but as a kid it felt more like a being fan of the faith and Church, kind of a superficial relationship. After Confirmation I had a deeper conversion experience where I realised the importance of faith, understood more intuitively where it stemmed from, and realised the importance of proselytism. So without that Sacrament of Confirmation is it even possible to fully comprehend the Christian faith without those gifts of the Holy Spirit?
I grew up Catholic and growing up I was afraid of doing any wrongdoing as I would be condemned and going to hell. I always felt wrong and shameful going to confession. Now as an adult and I learned about more in depth of the Catholic religion and about my ancestors. My great grandfather was Spainard and my great grandmother was native to Mexico. I understand I am at no fault or someone I directly/personally know. How am I supposed to believe/follow a religion that was responsible for Indian Boarding schools not only in the US but in Canada as well. Many people were stripped from their land, their beliefs, their families. Many killed and separated to convert them into Catholics because their beliefs "were the right beliefs and make them into members of society.
I honestly do not know if my great grandmother was forced to marry or to that extent as my grandfather passed away many years ago. But how am I supposed to follow and abide by a religion that did the opposite of what is practiced? As well as many pastors abusing children. The killing of who knows how many natives. I understand people are bad, people do bad things. All this harm that was done but yet I was raised to believe if you dont do x y and z you will be damned to hell.
Now that I have children of my own also I question getting them baptized as baptism is seen a way to get rid of sin but children have no sins so what is the point of that?
I am not sure what I am asking at this point but learning about my ancestry and the horrors of the past done by Catholic preachers. Just made me question my religion as why should I follow and practice this religion knowing people who followed this religion caused a great amount of trauma generations to follow. I'm not saying I have generational trauma regarding this but it just makes me question everything as well shameful even looking at my ancestry knowing that my ancestors were part of a genocide.
Mam pytanie skierowane głównie do chrześcijan. Dlaczego Bóg zlecił spisanie testamentu na nowy? Skoro wiedział, że należy będzie go spisać na nowo to dlaczego nie zalecił ludziom, aby zrobili to od razu? Rozumiem, że stary testament i nowy jest postrzegany jako pewna całość, ale nie możemy udawać, że nie ma w nim wielu różnic i zmian w zachowaniu, słowach Boga. Skoro Bóg jest nieomylny to dlaczego tak bardzo zmienił swój stosunek do ludzkości? Czy z punktu widzenia logiki nie jest to sytuacja błędna?
Piszę tutaj, bo chciałam bardziej odpowiedź z perspektywy kogoś kto może interesuje się bardziej filozofią religii.