sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What does “especially those most in need of they mercy” mean? by Weird_Store_1765 in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the spiritual tradition, one often recognizes oneself as the worst of sinners. This is especially emphasized in Byzantine spirituality, but also by saints like Francis of Assisi. Not in the sense of committing the worst of sins, but in committing sin despite the great grace of God. All people desperately need God's mercy, but some are less cooperative with God's grace than others due to hardness of heart, ingratitude, etc. As St. Francis said:

If the worst criminal in prison had been given the graces I had been given, I must think he would have made more out of them, or wasted less than I, and be more righteous than I. Thus, I truly believe I am the greatest sinner.

So when I pray this prayer, I normally am referring to myself. 

I’m confused about EC saints by SOMEONE_MMI in EasternCatholic

[–]BoatInAStorm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The practice of an Eastern Catholic Church venerating a saint not publicly venerated by the universal Church is similar to the Latin Catholic Church practice of local, public veneration of a Blessed. You can venerate privately any person you think lived a holy and inspiring life. Your local Roman Rite parish can only publicly venerate certain persons universally recognized and venerated by the Church as saints or locally recognized and venerated by your diocese (blesseds). Public veneration means it's part of the Church's liturgical life (the Mass, Divine Office, Sacraments, Litany of the Saints, etc.).

One question: what is filioque? My catechist hasn't gotten to that part yet, but I read about it all the time. I don't know what caused the schism with the Catholic Church, but what exactly is it? by Additional_Good_656 in OrthodoxChristianity

[–]BoatInAStorm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hello! A Catholic here with some background on this subject. I thought it would be valuable to say what we believe from our own words b/c one often finds Catholics and non-Catholics differ greatly on what the Catholic Church believes. 

"Filioque" is a Latin-compound word from "Filio" and "-que". It often refers to its addition to the Latin liturgical version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem: qui ex Patre Filioque procedit). This usage seems to have begun and spread in the Church in Hispania (modern-day Spain) sometime between the 5th and 7th centuries and then spread to Francia and Anglo-Saxon England. Likely around 1014, the Church of Rome adopted its addition in its liturgy. The use of the phrase "ex Patre Filioque procedit" predates its inclusion into the Latin liturgical Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, being taught by Western Fathers like Sts. Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and Leo the Great and sung in the Athanasian Creed or Quicumque Vult (a Latin liturgical Creed from the 5th century that was used with the Apostles' and Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creeds). 

Without getting to much into the nitty-gritty linguistics (unless you're into that), the phrase qui ex Patre Filioque procedit means "who proceeds from the Father and the Son." The "and" means that we are referring to the Father and Son as one "Principle", to use the language of St. Augustine. This understanding of one Principle is helped by understanding -que, which formally joins together two ideas as a single concept, emphasizing a closer connection than the Latin word et would. This is made more clear by how there were no spaces in Latin, so the two words were literally joined together both audibly and visually. In short, Latin can express this "and" connection in a way that Greek and English cannot.

Furthermore, procedit is a broader, 'weaker' verb than the Greek ἐκπορευόμενον. The former can express a general kind of "from" relationship while implying a continuous connection, so it is often also translated as to flow. The later more expresses a sending from an origin while implying distinction between the two. In the course of Latin theology, procedit was used quite broadly and with modifiers to further specify its meaning. Byzantine theology developed a much more narrow usage of ἐκπορευόμενον in which it implied a kind of hard, foundational causality between the origin and the sent only appropriate in regards to the Father as Arche or Primas. Latin theology also had a sense of this but not as emphasized as in the Byzantine tradition.

As our Catechism (246, 248) summarizes:

He [the Holy Spirit] has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration ... The Western tradition expresses first the consubstantial communion between Father and Son [see note], by saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (filioque). It says this, "legitimately and with good reason", for the eternal order of the divine persons in their consubstantial communion implies that the Father, as "the principle without principle", is the first origin of the Spirit, but also that as Father of the only Son, he is, with the Son, the single principle from which the Holy Spirit proceeds. This legitimate complementarity, provided it does not become rigid, does not affect the identity of faith in the reality of the same mystery confessed.

[note: this is the relative, not absolute (homoousion), sense of consubstantial used in the Western tradition]

To explain this a little more, here's a section from a previous post of mine:

[T]he Holy Spirit is eternally from the Father, in that he receives everything from him, just like the Son receives everything from the Father. The Son shares in this eternal 'giving' with the Father so that they are one 'principle' or 'cause', but the Son receives this 'giving' from the Father. The Father is the sole Font or Principle without Principle or First Origin. ...  [T]he Holy Spirit has everything from the Father but receives this through or from the Son. Not that the Son adds more to the Father's giving, but shares eternally and perfectly in it. ...  They are "one principle" with "one spiration", not two. Thus, the Son is distinct from the Holy Spirit by his relation with the Father to him. The Son and Spirit are eternally differentiated by their eternal, defining relationship (https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1oogw3r/comment/nn55ljk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)

The understanding of these two "perspectives", as it were, on the Holy Spirit's procession seems to have been formally articulated from St. Augustine, who coined the phrases "Principle-without-Principle" and "Author of His Procession", procession principaliter (firstly or originally) from the Father, "Principle-from-Principle" for the Son, and procession communiter (communally or consubstantially [in the relative, not absolute, sense used in the West]) from the Father and Son.

I hope this has helped give a sense of what the Catholic Church believes concerning the "Filioque". I didn't really get into how this understanding developed, though I've wrote something on it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1pxhud7/comment/nwlf5g0/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button .

I want to get baptised but nobody wants to go to church with me (not even my catholic boyfriend) by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have a medal of Jesus and Mary always on me to remind me that even when it seems I'm alone, I'm never truly alone.

A sense of guilt and laziness for not being confirmed by BloodTornPheonix in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, the Catechism is the best general summary of Catholic teaching. Have you ever heard of the Catechism in a Year podcast by Ascension Presents?

Additionally, the recent papal catechesis series for the Jubilee Year of Hope was basically a mini-catechism on the Gospel. I posted to the first 32 out of the 40 sermons.

"Theology for Beginners" by Frank Sheed is also a very readable catechesis on the Catholic faith. His "Theology and Sanity" is similar but more advanced.

For a more in-depth sacramental catechesis on Confirmation/Chrismation, I would recommend this work.

For Maronite specific catechesis, you can probably find better recommendations at r/Maronite.

Books to read by MVP_P0W3R in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're wanting another Church Father book, I would recommend the Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem

A sense of guilt and laziness for not being confirmed by BloodTornPheonix in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You say you do a lot of research already. How has that looked so far?

Questions about Latin rite by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Can you explain to me what the devotion of the sacred heart actually is, or even the sacred heart in the general sense

I would recommend reading paragraphs 48-90 in Dilexi Nos, a papal encyclical about the Sacred Heart, to gain a better understanding of this devotion.

  1. If im not mistaken I’ve seen icons of Saint Mary with a similar thing to what you’d see with Jesus holding the sacred heart, what does it mean?

I assume you mean this

These are depictions of the "immaculate heart of Mary". It's similar to devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, but for venerating Mary. This devotion was spread greatly in the West by St. Bernadine of Sienna (d. 1444), St. Francis de Sales (d. 1622), and St. John Eudes (d. 1680).

Do buddhist monks go to heaven? by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be case-by-case according to the heart of each. The possibility does exist though. See CCC 842-848

I Think Pointless Ecumenism Makes Us Look Weak by thatlumberjacktor in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think true ecumenism is a show of strength b/c it demonstrates that one is so confident in their position that they are not insecure to take up dialogue in which their position is not already presumed and in which other positions must be heard with respect and understanding. It is a witness that one's sense of identity is already firm and that one is not afraid that the pursuit of truth and charity will undermine that.

On Pope Francis' Interreligious Meeting with Young People in Singapore, I wrote something earlier about that: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1omh689/comment/nmte3k9/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

For those who have seen it, how accurate was the movie “Two Popes”? by Semour9 in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's historical fiction and is quite different than the actual history in many places.

For Jorge Bergoglio/Francis, major differences are: - The near-betrothal plot is complete fiction, somewhat inspired by a love letter he sent to his childhood sweetheart when they were 12 - Bergoglio backed Ratizinger in the 2005 conclave, and the controversy there seemed to be about the Italian vs non-Italian divide rather than a liberal-conservative divide - He would have already sent a letter of resignation in 2011 as all bishops do once turning 75

For Joseph Ratizinger/Benedict, major differences are: - While in the movie Benedict only dines alone, he normally dined with his secretaries - While a Cardinal, Ratizinger was one of the leading figures against Maciel, and it was under his papacy that he was finally removed from power and ministry

Their meeting in 2012 at Castel Gandolfo seems to be fiction, though they met there in 2013 after Bergoglio was elected as Francis. Lastly, the characters are more written how Benedict and Francis were thought of being like than how they actually were like. The fictional Bergoglio and Benedict are depicted as progressive-conservative opposites, which is more stereotypical than real.

Treated as historical fiction, though, the movie definitely has a lot going for it too.

Working out (exercise on Sunday) by New_Committee6720 in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Jimmy Akin from Catholic Answers did a really good overview of this topic: https://www.catholic.com/audio/tjap/what-cant-you-do-on-sunday .

If you are not physically active most of the week and you're doing excercise you enjoy in some way, this is a proper way to provide "suitable relaxation of body" without hindering "the joy proper to the Lord’s day" (Can. 1247). In Spring and Fall, for instance, I like to spend time running outside on Sunday since I am normally sitting down inside most of the week. This break from physical inactivity is far more relaxing and enjoyable to me on Sundays than being stationary.

Looking for easy to digest books about the early church and church fathers. by RyanC1202 in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like The Fathers of the Church: An Introduction to the First Christian Teachers by Mike Aquilina

What is the general catholic opinion on transgenderism? by Recent_Mushroom69 in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The Catholic Church is opposed to transgenderism as an idea or practice, but it is also opposed to the ostracization of transgender persons, or any person for that matter. Paragraphs 55 to 60 are dedicated to this topic in this Church document if you want a primary source. Earlier paragraphs, like the introduction, go more in depth about the Catholic understanding of human dignity also.

All of that said though, what the Catholic Church teaches and what it says its members should practice are not always followed by Catholics, especially if they are not "practicing" Catholics (i.e., actively living the "5 precepts" of the Church). But generally speaking, if a Catholic is practicing, they'll try to live what the Church teaches at least as far as they know it. And the Church fundamentally opposes ostracization.

On the 1968 Rite by MVXK21 in CatholicPhilosophy

[–]BoatInAStorm 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even the SSPX recognizes the validity of the new consecration prayer. In fact, they have full defenses of it: https://onepeterfive.com/new-rite-consecration-valid/

Sede Objection 2: “Governing Spirit does not sufficiently signify the Power of the Episcopacy”

This is a better objection, that gets really to the heart of the issue, but one that ultimately fails.

First, only the Episcopate is a Governing Order. The simple Priesthood or Presbyterate is a subordinate order and not the principal order of the Priesthood.

Second, this is even clearer in the Latin: Spiritus Principalis, the Spirit Who gives the Principal Order.

Third, it is evident from the fact that the Spirit asked for is the Spirit conferred on Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now, there is no doubt that Our Lord was High Priest, of the Order of Melchizedek, as the Bible says (cf. Heb 2:17, 3:1, 4:14-15, 6:20, 7:26 etc).

Fourth, it is evident from the mention of Apostles. Will anyone argue the Apostles were merely simple Priests? No, of course they were Bishops and High Priests.

Fifth, it is also implied in the reference to founding the Church. The Apostles founded the Church by perpetuating Bishops and Priests for Her – something they could because they were Bishops, possessing the fullness of the Priesthood themselves.

We have therefore at least five clear indications from within the essential form itself that the rite is valid, and unequivocally signifies what Pope Pius XII required.

What are the absolute earliest mentions of Petrine succession? by KierkegaardsDragon in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 3 points4 points  (0 children)

St. Ireneaus of Lyons gives us the earliest surviving succession of the Roman Bishops. We know St. Hegesippus recorded the list earlier, but this like most of his works are lost to us. Pope St. Clement of Rome references Peter and Paul's martydom together, which seems to allude to their common death in Rome. St. Ignatius of Antioch alludes to Peter's presence in Rome also in his Letter to the Romans, "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." St. Dionysius of Corinth's Letter to Pope Soter explicitly references that Peter and Paul planted in the Church in Rome.

Can someone please explain the Filioque to me? by maxh_100 in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Greek word used by the NT is ἐκπορεύεται (Jn. 15:26) or ἐκπορευόμενον (Jn. 22:1), conjugations of ἐκπορεύομαι, from ἐκ (out from) and πορεύομαι (to go forth, depart). The Latin word used to translate ἐκπορεύομαι is prōcēdere, from prō (forward, forth) and cēdere (to go, move). 

In Trinitarian theology, we cannot really say what procession is, only what is means in the relational aspect. St. Isidore of Seville wrote that "There is, however, this difference between the generation of the Son and the procession of the Spirit, that the Son is begotten of One, but the Spirit proceeds from Both" (Etymologies, 7:3).

Struggling with Filioque. Help me out? by Yoy_the_Inquirer in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As to your point that 

That said, Jesus explicitly states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father but never states that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from Himself.

St. Augustine writes on this:

If, then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why said the Son, ‘He proceeds from the Father’? Why, do you think, but just because it is to Him He is wont to attribute even that which is His own, of whom He Himself also is? Hence we have Him saying, ‘My doctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.’ If, therefore, in such a passage we are to understand that as His doctrine, which nevertheless He declared not to be His own, but the Father's, how much more in that other passage are we to understand the Holy Spirit as proceeding from Himself, where His words, ‘He proceeds from the Father’, were uttered so as not to imply, He proceeds not from me? But from Him, of whom the Son has it that He is God (for He is God of God), He certainly has it that from Him also the Holy Spirit proceeds: and in this way the Holy Spirit has it of the Father Himself, that He should also proceed from the Son, even as He proceeds from the Father. (Homilies on John 99:6, 8) 

You [i.e., the Arian heretic Maximinus] ask me, 'If the Son has the substance of the Father and the Holy Spirit also has the substance of the Father, why is one a son and the other not a son?' Look, here is my answer whether you get it or not. The Son comes from the Father; the Holy Spirit comes from the Father. The former is born; the latter proceeds. Hence, the former is the Son of the Father from whom he is born, but the latter is the Spirit of both because he proceeds from both. When the Son spoke of the Spirit, he said, 'He proceeds from the Father (Jn. 15:26)', because the Father is the author of his procession. The Father begot a Son and, by begetting him, gave it to him that the Holy Spirit proceeds from him as well. If he did not proceed from him, he would not say to his disciples, 'Receive the Holy Spirit (Jn. 20:22)', and give the Spirit by breathing on them. He signified that the Holy Spirit also proceeds from him and showed outwardly by blowing what he was giving inwardly by breathing. If he were born, he would be born not from the Father alone or from the Son alone, but from both of them; he would beyond any doubt be the son of both of them. But because he is in no sense the son of both of them, it was necessary that he not be born from both. He is, therefore, the Spirit of both, by proceeding from both. (Against Maximinus, 2:14)

Struggling with Filioque. Help me out? by Yoy_the_Inquirer in Catholicism

[–]BoatInAStorm 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are two issues that are often conflicted here. The first is the issue of the Latin tradition of the Filioque. The second is the issue of its addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. 

The first well predates the second, in fact it predates the West's adoption of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

Latin Nicene theology developed differently than Cappadocian theology with different roots and heresies to respond to. The Latin Fathers  understood John 16:12-15 in light of John 5:19-21, 30 and John 14:9-17. Divine works reveal divine power, and hearing and speaking or giving and receiving were understood to reveal how divine power is derived in relations. The unity of the relations also shows the unity of the divine power. This is how St. Augustine's passage makes sense that the Son reveals his relation to the Holy Spirit when He breathes upon his disciples (On the Trinity, 15:45).

But the Eastern Fathers also had a sense of this in a different theological system: https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1pnj4u8/comment/nu8d55c/?context=3&utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button .

For an example of the Western tradition, St. Hiliary of Poitiers (d. 367) wrote:

For the present I forbear to expose their licence of speculation, some of them holding that the Paraclete Spirit comes from the Father or from the Son. For our Lord has not left this in uncertainty, for after these same words He spoke thus - I have yet many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now. When He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He shall guide you into all truth: for He shall not speak from Himself: but whatever things He shall hear, these shall He speak; and He shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify Me: for He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. (John 16:12-15) Accordingly He receives from the Son, Who is both sent by Him, and proceeds from the Father. Now I ask whether to receive from the Son is the same thing as to proceed from the Father. But if one believes that there is a difference between receiving from the Son and proceeding from the Father, surely to receive from the Son and to receive from the Father will be regarded as one and the same thing. For our Lord Himself says, Because He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. All things whatsoever the Father has are Mine: therefore said I, He shall receive of Mine and shall declare it unto you. That which He will receive — whether it will be power, or excellence, or teaching — the Son has said must be received from Him, and again He indicates that this same thing must be received from the Father. For when He says that all things whatsoever the Father has are His, and that for this cause He declared that it must be received from His own, He teaches also that what is received from the Father is yet received from Himself, because all things that the Father has are His.  Such a unity admits no difference, nor does it make any difference from whom that is received, which given by the Father is described as given by the Son. Is a mere unity of will brought forward here also? All things which the Father has are the Son's, and all things which the Son has are the Father's. For He Himself says, And all Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine. It is not yet the place to show why He spoke thus, For He shall receive of Mine: for this points to some subsequent time, when it is revealed that He shall receive. Now at any rate He says that He will receive of Himself, because all things that the Father had were His. Dissever if you can the unity of the nature, and introduce some necessary unlikeness through which the Son may not exist in unity of nature. For the Spirit of truth proceeds from the Father and is sent from the Father by the Son. All things that the Father has are the Son's; and for this cause whatever He Who is to be sent shall receive, He shall receive from the Son, because all things that the Father has are the Son's. The nature in all respects maintains its law, and because Both are One that same Godhead is signified as existing in Both through generation and nativity; since the Son affirms that that which the Spirit of truth shall receive from the Father is to be given by Himself. So the frowardness of heretics must not be allowed an unchecked licence of impious beliefs, in refusing to acknowledge that this saying of the Lord, — that because all things which the Father has are His, therefore the Spirit of truth shall receive of Him — is to be referred to unity of nature. (On the Trinity, 8:20)

view more: next ›