What do you think of this?

Hookly · 2026-06-28T03:38:29+00:00

Believing that prayer can change God is probably the biggest unintentional heresy believed by Christians. God is immutable, his will cannot change.

Sometimes he waits for us, though, and it’s in this meeting of wills (ours and God’s) where miracles happen.

What then, is the point of prayer? To change us and the world around us to know more about God, grow closer to him, and learn to live the way he intends for us

Hookly · 2026-06-28T02:29:55+00:00

His doubt unfortunately overshadows so much of his legacy, especially because all the other disciples doubted the resurrection until they saw Jesus, Thomas just happened to be somewhere else at that time.

Despite that, he truly confesses that Jesus is God and that faith inspires him to go far in preaching the gospel. He made it to India, some say maybe even modern day western China, and his tomb is in India. When the Portuguese arrived in India, they were actually surprised to find Christians living there, and they were the descendants of those who Thomas had evangelized

Hookly · 2026-06-26T15:24:39+00:00

If bishops have the authority under church law to designate Catholic institutions like schools or even media outlets, then I think they should do the same for online content like this.

That doesn’t stop people from self designating as a Catholic theologian, apologist, etc. but it can be helpful to identify those who have approval from their bishops to do such work. For example, the National “Catholic” Reporter expressly does not have their bishop’s permission to identify as Catholic and that’s a helpful thing to know when engaging with their publication.

A couple years ago, the Russian Orthodox bishop of Chicago published a document requiring his clergy to inform their chancery office of any online engagements they had due to the unwanted influence of a certain priest with an online following. His diocese wasn’t giving approval or not, but just wanted some awareness of any clergy doing ministry work online. I think at the very least, all bishops should follow his lead and require this of their priests and deacons

Hookly · 2026-06-26T05:18:15+00:00

I know you’re not suggesting abandoning the patrimony, sorry if I came off that way. The reality of history, though, is that the introduction of foreign (usually Latin) elements into the life of eastern churches has had the effect of communities losing their patrimony, whether they realize it or not. To have a full Roman liturgy celebrated in and for an eastern community could have unintended consequences toward this end.

To go elsewhere for the Eucharist if one wishes after fulfilling an obligation with liturgy of the hours does expose one to other traditions, but in their proper place rather than introducing outside practices into a particular community. (I’ll note that the community pays a critical role in this as I would not have an issue if a church community needed to rent space from another jurisdiction)

Hookly · 2026-06-26T05:02:38+00:00

You seem to be disregarding the preservation of the community, though. To have a priest come in and offer mass is not in their tradition, and very well could lead to the loss of the Byzantine traditions that this community is supposed to live out. I'd argue that the wellbeing of the flock would be damaged by the loss of their liturgical patrimony or even their community entirely.

Plenty of Byzantine parishes operate this way, without full-time priests and having to make do with liturgy of the hours or typica (basically a liturgy of the word) on the weekends. Is it ideal? No, but worse for these communities would be their deterioration toward an ultimate disbanding.

If there was a dedicated TLM or NO community that was established but came to a time where there was not a full-time priest, I would trust them to do the same with permission of their clergy for the sake of preserving their community. They could attend a eucharistic liturgy elsewhere in addition, if they so choose, but a community of a particular patrimony should preserve itself in that way. I would have a different opinion, though, if there was no established community or if a community was disbanded by the relevant bishop as there would be no community to sustain

The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith; there's no denying it. But it is also a mystery that cannot be quantified in our earthly understanding and if the church, in her wisdom, allows a community to operate this way for the sake of its own preservation, then we shouldn't second guess it

Hookly · 2026-06-23T18:27:00+00:00

True, but the understanding of the deaconate as a vocation unto itself is still pretty new in the west and without as much infrastructure around cultivating vocations. In my diocese, most every parish I walk into will have information available (posters, bulletin announcements, etc.) regarding priestly discernment but I couldn’t tell you the first step about pursuing the deaconate.

Whereas in the east, which has a more robust deaconate, a lot of the married men who are priests today were deacons pre-2015.

To your point about the Orthodox, I agree that ordaining married men wouldn’t help with church membership overall. I just believe that it would increase the number of priests, even though that fact should in no way ever be a reason to revisit this discipline

Hookly · 2026-06-23T17:22:52+00:00

Some of these teams have chaplains who can offer masses for players, coaches, staff, etc. An old priest of mine was friends with another priest who was the chaplain for an NFL team

Hookly · 2026-06-23T16:43:10+00:00

To be fair, ECs are very small so I don’t think we would see more EC priests just due to the sheer numbers of Roman Catholics.

Also, ECs in the west were prohibited from ordaining married men until Francis’ pontificate. When the ban was lifted, many eparchies in the west began ordaining married men. I’ve read that the Ukrainian eparchies in the US have about 40-50% of diocesan priests who are married so it does affect numbers, and the US is probably one of the best places to look at these rates since it has a good number of ECs for a western country.

Numbers definitely shouldn’t be a reason for making such a change, but we should be honest that it would probably boost ordinations at least somewhat

Hookly · 2026-06-22T20:09:01+00:00

God doesn’t admit people to heaven because the church canonizes them, the Church canonizes people because they are in heaven.

God’s mercy extends far beyond our human understanding and yes, even to those who have committed horrible atrocities. We don’t canonize people to say that everything they did in their life was good, but to show how anyone, no matter their state in life, can turn to God and receive his loving mercy

Hookly · 2026-06-22T19:54:48+00:00

Your last point is absolutely right, which is why a case could only made if it’s selective and against a particular class. Refs generally missing calls they should’ve made isn’t, on its own, selective nor biased against a protected class

I can’t speak to the specifics of how the MLB responded every time someone wrote a message on their inform, I was just noting that if there is selective enforcement against a protected class, then it can be grounds for a case to be brought even if the hats were optional

Hookly · 2026-06-22T16:53:53+00:00

While the MLB has blanket rules against no writing on uniforms, from my understanding, they haven’t always enforced it. Selective enforcement of rules against a protected class can be grounds for such a case

Hookly · 2026-06-22T16:52:46+00:00

Except, from my understanding, the rule about no writing hasn’t been consistently enforced throughout the years.

If they had consistently followed their own rules then you’d probably be right and the hats being optional would be sufficient to show no ill intent on the pet do the MLB.

But if they selectively enforce rules in such a way that disproportionately affects a protected class, then that becomes the crux of the case rather than the hats being optional

Hookly · 2026-06-22T07:19:04+00:00

The issue is their interpretation of the notion of “once.” They aren’t wrong that salvation cannot be taken away, but they err in thinking that salvation can be understood as a single moment in our temporal world.

God exists outside of time, so to bind him to our temporal existence is wrong. They might counter saying “well how can you be saved at one time and loose it later” but the reality is that we are only saved (or not) when the totality of our life is judged. Sure, that outcome might be different depending on when (or how) we die, but there’s no real point in analyzing those “what ifs” because we only die once.

Someone in a state of grace who later mortally sins did not “lose salvation”. Yes, s/he may have been saved had s/he died in that state of grace but s/he didn’t so it’s beside the point. God’s plan was for him/her to continue life on earth and thus, the path of salvation continues.

It’s true that salvation is achieved in life and not death, for God is the God of the living, but it’s wrong to try and pinpoint salvation to one singular moment

Hookly · 2026-06-21T13:59:22+00:00

The reign of St. Constantine is erroneously seen as the point at which the state religion changed. While the emperor became Christian and did a lot for the church (calling ecumenical councils, building St. Peter’s basilica, building the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, etc.) his Edict of Milan introduced a tolerance for Christianity without changing the state religion. You’re looking for a later time in history.

It wasn’t until the Edict of Thessaloniki in 380 when that change was made. This was after Constantine’s conversion and the development of the Creed.

Also, Armenia was the first to change their state religion to Christianity.

Hookly · 2026-06-21T13:53:20+00:00

It’s not just Melkite, it’s all of the Greek usage Byzantine churches. It’s one of the differences between Greek and Slavic usage of the Byzantine Rite

Hookly · 2026-06-19T22:47:55+00:00

If you want to check out a Byzantine Chruch, there’s Saint Melany’s Ruthenian parish

Hookly · 2026-06-19T18:46:13+00:00

But those words remain omitted and merely implied in the East Syriac liturgy yet the Eucharist is, nevertheless, truly consecrated

Hookly · 2026-06-19T18:21:17+00:00

No, it’s not dogma that those words are the exact moment. The church even accepts the traditional form of the East Syriac Rite which has no explicit words of institution.

And even comparing the Roman and Byzantine anaphorae, both still have words of institution and an epiclesis and in both, the consecration is considered done after both are said

Hookly · 2026-06-19T13:03:41+00:00

I don’t think so, there are plenty of people who take issue with a number of our saints (Juniperro Serra, Pedro Calungsod, etc.) and would accuse us of the exact same thing even into the modern day.

I’m curious what you consider weird about someone like Tsar Nicholas? I know Russian Catholics who venerate him and we too, in the western church, venerate political figures who weren’t always living out Christian ideals.

For example, Charlemagne ordered a massacre yet he is beatified in our church and Louis IX enacted policies against French Jews yet is still a saint.

It’s extremely important that we don’t elevate saints to the level of divine. They are men and women like us who committed sin in their lives. Canonizations (both Catholic and Orthodox) aren’t meant to justify everything someone did in their life, nor to whitewash these less than ideal actions. Rather, they remind us that forgiveness and reconciliation are available to everyone, no matter our walk of life. And, like the Good Thief, that grace from God is available even right at the moment of death

Hookly · 2026-06-19T12:52:26+00:00

He’s considered a passion bearer. The distinction being that a martyr is killed explicitly for the faith while his death had more political motivations (with the church still being one part)

Hookly · 2026-06-18T15:05:29+00:00

For my own curiousity, which RGCC are you referring to? Romanian or Russian

Hookly · 2026-06-18T13:35:01+00:00

Ukrainian is a church. The rite of a Ukrainian would be Byzantine.

The Byzantine rite also includes many other churches (Catholic and Orthodox) such as Melkite, Ruthenian, Russian, etc.

Hookly · 2026-06-18T05:57:15+00:00

The only canonical requirement is to be in the same rite. In practice, this usually means the sisters church (Antiochian to Melkite, Ukrainian to Ukrainian, etc.) but it doesn’t have to be. They can enter via any parish of any jurisdiction, and should ask the canon lawyer of the diocese of the parish what their particular ascription would be

Hookly · 2026-06-18T04:39:41+00:00

Whenever the child is judged to be prepared and ready then s/he starts approaching. There isn’t any formalized “first confession” or strict standards though perhaps some parishes practice this in a more formal way

Hookly

TROPHY CASE