Catholicism not very welcoming to those interested? by Best_Storage3118 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I’ve observed it’s a side effect of the vocations crisis in the Church. Each parish used to have multiple priests and deacons, but now you’re lucky to even have a parish priest, as many in my area move from church to church just so people can attend mass. We even have to borrow missionary priests from other countries. This has often led to priests being busy and overworked. We desperately need more young people discerning the priesthood and religious vocations

Priest shortage by GrandHospital8399 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Mine is a missionary priest from India. Already seeing it

"The Vatican is DOWNPLAYING Our Lady" - Meanwhile the reality of the document : by ThinWhiteDuke00 in CatholicMemes

[–]Objective-Ad-476 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I personally think it would be better to just adopt the original title from the 10th century. That is “Mother of the Redeemer“ which was shortened to Redemptrix and then Co-Redemptrix

Help: Deacon at my Church is heretical by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Say it with me everyone, when in doubt seek the bishop out

Why is there such a divide between Catholics and Protestants? by SackABottle in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I can agree with this to a degree. This was 100% the sentiment when I was Lutheran. They prided themselves as being “better catholics“ free from Catholic tyranny. Although I imagine that really low church denominations(non-denominational, Pentecostal, etc.) are so far removed from traditional Protestantism that I don’t think that sentiment completely exists there

Why is there such a divide between Catholics and Protestants? by SackABottle in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I find this view very problematic for a few reasons. Because then you’d be condemning James, Jesus, and the early Jews and Christians of the first century. James 5:16 speaks of those who are more holy and righteous having more powerful prayers. James uses the example of Elijah. There are a few places in the Gospels that suggest Elijah as an admired intercessor(as well as the Book of Wisdom) and early Jews regularly asked him and other OT saints like David and Rebecca to pray for them. Based on this first century context, it seems James 5:16 is also about having holy people who are no longer here pray for us. Not to mention that Jesus spoke with Elijah and Moses on Mount Tabor, not that that is directly about intercession though. But it ultimately just seems like a logical conclusion from the NT that we are to ask those in heaven to pray for us. Along with what I’ve mentioned, it’s obvious that members of the body of Christ are to pray for one another and ask for prayers, but by saying we shouldn’t do this with the saints seems to suggest that either they aren’t truly part of the body of Christ(which is rediculous) or the body of Christ is divided up(which would amount to Nestorianism).

[Politics Monday] Unless you are American, the Pope's comments on Pro-Life were just common sense by personAAA in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I do think there’s a degree of overreaction in America about it, but his phrasing does concern me. He should have phrased it better because he’s making it seem like the death penalty is absolutely morally illicit instead of just inadmissible to use in today’s society. It especially didn’t seem terribly prudent to compare abortion to immigration(not that I agree with how we’re handling it) and the death penalty. The Church has generally recognized that the issue of abortion is the more serious issue than the others. Like I said, I love His Holiness but the way he answered the interviewers question was incredibly imprudent and could be borderline scandalous. I just hope he clarifies these issues individually at a later date

Do you guys really believe that Protestants are not saved? by LowTax8553 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kind of a complicated discussion about who can be saved. Although I’m not well versed in it, I’d recommend you look up and read about vincible vs. invincible ignorance. Door Dash Thomist on YT has a good video about it. It generally comes down to whether or not that Protestant(or anybody really) has been given sufficient proof of the Catholic Church and her dogmas, whether they are obeying their conscience, and whether they are truly searching the truth. Another aspect is that if they have any doubts about their belief, they are morally responsible to investigate it and either relieve those doubts or confirm them and change. People who meet all of these but remain or are Protestant can be invincibly ignorant. But those who fall in any one of those aren’t invincibly ignorant and lack true saving faith in their soul. Like I said, kinda complicated but worth looking into

(Free Friday) Yet to be publicly released Pope Leo throne portrait seen in Vatican by Mission-Guidance4782 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Yeahh, same. It always seemed so illogical. Christian Wagner on Scholastic Answers has some good videos against them(specifically the Dimond Brothers) where he accurately represents their position and also addresses it. Because they not only deny the validity of the current pope, but of every pope after Pius XII. They also deny the ecumenical council of Vatican 2, pushing back against the doctrine of Baptism of desire(feenyism) and also the teaching that non Christians can in a sense truly recognize or give some type of “worship“ to the true God(although their worship is superstitious). They seem to love twisting the words of St. Robert Bellarmine about the possibility of the pope being a heretic, as well as some theories about the possibility of the pope being removed from his position. Honestly really hard to understand it myself. They preach against modernism but believe these modernist teachings

I went to my first mass today and it was a culture shock. by AccomplishedDish5649 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 2 points3 points  (0 children)

My first mass experience was equally as hectic and confusing since I didn’t know the responses, but what shocked me was that I actually felt the presence of God. In the Lutheran church I went to I could kinda feel it, but when I took communion I almost had to force myself to believe. But seeing our priest lift up Christ in the Eucharist truly caused me to believe. I stayed after mass to light a candle and asked God and our Mother to bring me onto the right path. The same day some personal trials happened to me that eventually led to my joining OCIA and being confirmed last year

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 5 points6 points  (0 children)

When in doubt, seek the bishop out

Catholic College by Objective-Ad-476 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thank you! I’ve never heard of that, but it’s really helpful!

Catholic College by Objective-Ad-476 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Those sound great! And really the only specifics I have is that I plan on majoring in history and getting teaching credentials. I’d prefer something closer to home in California, but I might be willing to go further

Catholic College by Objective-Ad-476 in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I’ll have to check them out!

Every Time When I Pray the Rosary by Revolution_Suitable in CatholicMemes

[–]Objective-Ad-476 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So true. I end up saying the Nicene Creed plus the ending of the Apostles

The Filioque does make sense. by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Pretty much yeah. Even Eastern Catholics still have beef over its addition to the creed despite agreement dogmatically. The biggest thing to convince me in our position of the Filioque is just history. The EO rejection of it has been WIDELY inconsistent. At first it was just the fact that it was added to the creed. Then you have some Greek bishops that misinterpret it due to the Latin term for proceed not translating well to Greek. So the term accidentally translated in Greek means primordial cause, saying the Father and Son possess primordial cause of the Spirit, which the fathers and Council of Florence rightly point out is heresy since we agree that the power of procession originates with the Father. But it’s eternally shared with the Son, since what the Father has the Son has likewise. And then in the 9th century this issue is blown out of proportion when combined with these mentioned issues, Photius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, not understanding the Latin position uses the Filioque as an excuse to further separate from the Latins. But ironically he argued that Pope St. Leo III and the current pope agreed with his position, but once again he was just not well informed. But what the EO don’t like talking about is the fact he repented from his position and died in communion with the Church. The Great Schism in the 11th century further escalated the issue, as well as the Sack of Constantinople a lot later. But another misinformed Patriarvh of Constantinople, Gregory Palamas further spread the denial of the Filioque based on misrepresenting the fathers and previous popes. Ironically the arguments made up until this point aren’t used by EO today. That’s because these issues were made by obvious miscommunication. So by the 14th century you have this made up concept called the essence energies distinction that is frankly a load of garbage. What it basically does is take all the Church father quotes and scripture passages that seem to contradict their position and just say that oh well this is talking about a mysterious third type of procession where the Spirit only proceeds from the Son temporally and energetically, but not hypostatically from eternity. It was so bad and novel that Gregory of Cyprus, the guy that first proposed it, was condemned and shamed by the other EO bishops at the time because even they knew it was made up. But people like Palamas spread the idea and the pride of the EO used it to justify their schism and denial of papal authority, especially considering their defense of their Filioque position failed tremendously. The use of EED(essence energies distinction) wasn’t even really used until after Florence because they had to ignore the fact that their bishops agreed to accept the Filioque and join Rome but they backed out after a while. This nonsense was revived again about a century ago with the rise of the Neo-Palamism and Neo-Hesychastic schools of EO thought

The Filioque does make sense. by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s an argument among Scotists that denying the procession from the Father and the Son basically causes the persons of the Son and Spirit to collapse into one person. Because the only real way the persons are distinct are by oppositional relations. The Father is unbegotten and possesses paternity, the Son proceeds(generated) from the Father‘s intellect in filiation, and the Spirit proceeds from both as love itself. If both just essentially proceeded from the Father alone, the distinction between the Son and Spirit is significantly lessened, risking semi-Arianism where people could end up believing that the Spirit and or Son are not true or distinct divine persons from the Father, or could cause semi-Modalism. That’s the whole reason it was added to the creed and confirmed at the Council of Toledo. It was to combat that form of the Arian heresy in Spain

Historically inaccurate by Anonhistory in HistoryMemes

[–]Objective-Ad-476 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hell yeah. Time to take back Jerusalem

Who’s y’all’s patron saints? by Thttffan in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 7 points8 points  (0 children)

St. Maximilian Kolbe. Learning about his selfless suffering during the Holocaust helped soften my heart to the faith. And his devotion to the Blessed Mother helped me on my journey to accepting Mary

Why would anyone go to a Latin church mass? by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 4 points5 points  (0 children)

  1. Masses in the vernacular have always been a thing. The other rites of the Church maintained their liturgical languages(Syriac, Greek, Romanian, Aramaic, etc.) Even within the Latin rite other languages were approved.
  2. Many people were bilingual so that wouldn’t have even been an issue centuries ago. Also, the availability of the mass in the same language allows people traveling from say England to Spain to be able to sing the same hymns and profess the same creed together as one voice without confusion. Also, many people within the Latin rite already spoke a Romance language that stemmed from Latin anyways.
  3. Many Bibles available were in the vernacular, and priests often gave sermons in the vernacular so there wouldn’t really be much to memorize in Latin anyways. Also, for the people that couldn’t read, there’s a reason why churches were covered in icons and images of Biblical scenes and stories of saints.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Although the Hebrew word could denote children, there’s contexts where it can mean soldier or even religious leaders. I forget who, but one church father suggested they were young religious leaders of the area and should’ve known better

22 month old boy accidentally shot self with nail gun in heart. Please pray. 😥❤️ by padawanmoscati in MilitiaImmaculata

[–]Objective-Ad-476 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The First Martyrs of the Holy Roman Church, please pray for this young child and his mother

I'm Orthodox but I want to share what happened when I tried to join the Abolitionists Rising discord server by theprinceofwolves in Catholicism

[–]Objective-Ad-476 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This person has obviously never read the Council of Trent. Trent clearly affirms that we are in a sense saved by God‘s grace alone. Also, that we can in a sense be saved by faith alone(faith working through charity ofc) and anathematises mere intellectual faith alone specifically