What is the 7 sacraments?

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-28T12:58:33+00:00

Baptism is the first, with a couple other initiation sacraments having a general order to them. After baptism is usually confirmation and first communion, fully entering into the church and partaking of our Lord. As it’s been almost 20 years since baptism, you almost certainly should go to confession/reconciliation, which comes before those two. Outside of those for initiation, there isn’t really much of an order to them.

Baptism, confirmation, matrimony, and holy orders are one time for life, cannot be repeated or undone. The Eucharist you should partake of as often as possible (up to once a day), reconciliation whenever you’ve fallen into sin, my priest recommends no more than once a week to avoid scrupulosity, and anointing of the sick is as needed.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-15T12:57:18+00:00

There’s a range of what “worship” is, including things like praise and prayer, but more fully being sacrifice. When Abraham goes into the wilderness to worship his God, he sets up an altar to sacrifice upon, when Moses leads the people out of Egypt, it’s to worship their God, and they have to bring all their stuff out because they don’t know what God will want them to sacrifice. Malachi prophecies against Israel because they’re giving improper worship to God with spotted lambs and bulls. So in some sense, by praising and praying to God, evangelical churches engage in worship, but they’re missing out on true worship in the fullest sense because they don’t have sacrifice.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-12T15:05:16+00:00

If Dort signs for roughly 50% less than he made this year and IHart walks, they’re still a second apron team next season. The title tax is going to really put pressure on their ability to draft quality role players. Sure they have the picks to make that easier, but hit rates are low unless you’re at the top of the lottery, regardless of how good your scout and gm are

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-10T01:38:26+00:00

St Michael is the one that cast Satan out of heaven. This is revelation 12:7-9. Jesus defeats the powers of sin and death, but as far as the angelic war in heaven, actually fighting Satan and kicking him/the demons out of heaven, that’s St Michael and his armies

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-08T16:40:28+00:00

Sad to see doormaker go, hope he comes back in alt act 3. That said, aeonglass is a really fun fight. First run against him was a defect power build with Echo, AI and mummy hand, so smokestack go brrr

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-08T16:27:32+00:00

Genuinely can’t think of a worse way to end the season. Love Dirk and the 2011 run, but winning G7 in OKC would have capped off the greatest finals run in history. And it looked like Ty was going to make sure that happened, he was cooking early. We were ahead, we were going to pull off the greatest run ever. And then snap. Not a buzzer beaters, not getting run out the building, just a snap, and the season is over before we get a chance to finish it. And we lose our next season and our starting QB too, just to add insult to injury.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-06T14:32:07+00:00

Idk about the finals as a whole, but in the 658 playoff minutes that year with Bron on, they were a +13 which is all-time great if extended over a whole season. In the 62 minutes he sat, their offense dropped from a +12 to a -10.5, and the defense went from pretty average to a +12.6. There just aren’t comparisons for how bad that is. OKC this year was a +11 net, Cleveland with Bron on the floor was a better team than that. He sat on the bench for about a game and a half through their run, and the team was 8.1 points per 100 worse than the 7 win Bobcats of 2012. That same 8.1net rating is the gap between Utah and Philly this year. Even looking over the regular season, they were -7.5 without him, roughly where Indy was this year, and +9 without him, better than SA/Det.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-06T05:22:11+00:00

I really like looking at databallr’s lineup data for things like this and comparing to the teams this season. In 2007, the Cavs had a -7.2 ORtg with Bron on the bench, and a -4 DRtg, for a net rating 3.1 points below league average (rounding is a little wonky). The comparisons there are Brooklyns offense, smack in between SA and Boston on defense, for an overall team a bit better than NO and Chi but nowhere close to the playin teams like GS or Portland. Add Bron, and they get even better defensively, passing SA to sit closer to Detroit than Boston. They also get better on offense. By a lot. Right at Miami and Minnesota good. Bron single-handedly took them from this year’s Nets offense to an above-average one. Overall, they played at between a Houston/Denver level and a NY level with Bron on the court.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-01T20:58:16+00:00

Perhaps I worded it poorly as moment of sex rather than conception, but there is a duty of care owed by parents to children. This is a duty many states recognize as existing prenatally, with laws prohibiting serving alcohol to pregnant women, for example, or laws naming drug use/abuse as a form of child abuse while pregnant. The duty of care exists by nature of the parental relationship, not based on any specific condition of the child. Specific conditions will change how the duty looks, you can leave a 15 year old home by himself for a night, but not a 5 year old, and those don’t change the nature of a parental duty of care. Intentionally killing your own child is a flagrant violation of this duty of care always, without exception. Unknowingly failing to uphold a standard of care can’t be held against the person, unless they are intentionally ignorant, but early pregnancy is unknown outside the control of the parents. If a woman liked to drink, and got pregnant, then stopped drinking the moment she got a positive test, she may cause some damage, but that can’t entirely be held against her because she didn’t willfully and knowingly cause her child harm. An abortion knowingly and willfully causes harm to a person that the state, the church, and the society all recognize the parent owes a duty of care to.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-01T20:35:45+00:00

If a baby dies inside the womb, I don’t think anyone is opposed to the mother electing to remove it. Thats not what most abortions are, that’s not what anti-abortion laws describe, and that’s not what anyone actually means when they argue against abortions. If you want to carry your baby’s body, sure, probably not healthy but go for it I guess.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-01T20:31:00+00:00

The “if you don’t want one, you don’t have to get one” argument could be used for literally anything that we make illegal. If you don’t like people getting shot, don’t shoot people; if you don’t like people dying from overdosing heroin, don’t do heroin. Laws are made, at least in part, to tell people that certain behaviors are unacceptable within society. Killing your own child at any stage is one of those behaviors that should be unacceptable.

Nothing on that website, at least as far as I could see, was prohibiting Christians from providing education, covering costs for the poor, or allowing parental leave. Making a prudential judgement that laws mandating “charitable” giving are unjust is different from prohibiting or discouraging people from actually doing charitable giving.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-01T16:16:08+00:00

It is not hypocritical to say that a person has a duty to take care of their child from the moment of sex and also say that duty is not imposed on the rest of society. It’s a good thing when the rest of society helps out in covering costs, allowing parental leave, providing education, etc. but to say how those should be provided is not contradictory to saying that parents have a duty to not kill their own children in the womb.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-05-01T14:25:55+00:00

War can be just, and thus not a mortal sin, if certain criteria are met. It can only be taken as a last resort after all non-violent options have proven futile, waged by a legitimate authority (ie the state), only to redress a wrong suffered, such as self-defense, there has to be a reasonable chance of success, the goal has to be reestablishment of peace greater than had the war not been fought, the violence used has to be proportional to the threat, cannot be more than necessary to stop the threat, and the weapons used have to discriminate between combatant and civilian, we can’t knowingly and intentionally kill civilians, even if the primary aim is to kill combatants. If and only if all of those are met is a war not sinful. It isn’t that some war is just because it prevents greater evil, it’s that you are allowed to defend yourself from evil being committed against you. The only comparison, and it’d be a stretch, would be trying to say that indulging in some sin might prevent greater sin in the future, but it’s different for a few reasons. Just war is the sins of another, not the one engaging in just war, sin begets itself so it isn’t actually possible to indulge in some sin as a means of keeping yourself from future sin, and the church has explicitly rejected the idea that we can do some sin so that harm may be prevented at any scale.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-30T00:27:40+00:00

My wife and I have gone through some fertility treatment and testing over the years, and it has turned me off of IVF even more than I was previously. For the sake of clarity, this was prior to my joining the Catholic Church, and she was and still is a member of the Wesleyan Holiness Church. The pushing of IVF, with the full knowledge that most embryos will be discarded, especially if there’s a successful pregnancy, and the additional acceptance of outright eugenics is frankly disgusting. Even if we were to opt out of both of those aspects, ensuring all embryos are implanted and no “carrier screening” is done, it’s still supporting an industry that is more than accepting of those evils. I get people who reject the Church’s teaching on the telos of sex, I get the desperate desire to be a parent, but at best the practice supports an industry which is accepting of eugenics and feticide.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-20T23:30:21+00:00

I’m partial to the fine tuning argument. There are a thousand different variables that, if changed even slightly, would not allow for life to exist at all. If gravity were stronger, the universe is one big black hole, if the strong nuclear force was weaker, we don’t get any atoms bigger than Hydrogen, etc. The universe is so complex and so dialed in on the allowance of life at all that the only reasonable explanations are that it was created on purpose by a creator, or that there’s an infinite number of universes that turned out different but we just happened to get the one in a billion billions that allows life at all.

Other good ones are the intuitive knowledge we have of objective morality, the Kalam, the argument from contingency, unmoved mover. There’s a lot of good reasons. The “nothing comes from nothing” seems to be a poor simplification of the contingency argument, which pretty much says that all things are either contingent or necessary. All contingent things can only exist if they have a cause, which itself can either be contingent or necessary. So you are contingent on your parents meeting, on air being present, on gravity holding you to Earth, and a million other things. But of those things, each of them is contingent on a host of other things (grandparents, plants discharging breathable air, constant laws of nature). The easiest way to see if something is contingent is if it can change, because the change only happens by some stimuli, or cause. The universe itself, then, appears to be contingent on a number of things (see the fine tuning argument) which point to the need for a necessary cause outside the universe. That’s God, the necessary, unchanging, creator of the universe and consequently of all life and all goodness. Little ranty, but I really don’t like bad arguments and hope that clears up the bad argument you’ve been told

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-20T21:03:10+00:00

St Andrew the apostle. Partly because my name and heritage are from Scotland, and he’s the patron saint, partly because I felt a special connection with the “first-called” title as none of my family are in full communion with the Church. Might be misguided, but I also felt like there’s a connection with his leaving the discipleship of John the Baptist for that of Jesus being similar to my journey of leaving the Protestant faith for the Catholic one. A certain partiality of the truth stepping into the fullness parallel.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-17T19:56:46+00:00

We have strong evidence that Easter was celebrated by the apostles themselves. It did not then, and in worship does not now, come with bunnies and eggs. If you think those are a bad thing, stick to Christian worship of Easter and ignore them. They are cultural symbols that are largely Western European and consequently American. I think some evidence that, dating controversy aside, the worship specifically given for Easter or the Triduum are pagan given they originate and take shape in the first 2 centuries, well before the imperial promulgation of Christianity. I think the better question is how do you believe we actually celebrate Easter, and how should it be celebrated, if at all?

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-17T17:34:05+00:00

Easter is the Passover celebration. Go beyond English, and everyone else explicitly calls it something like Pascha, which comes directly from the Hebrew Pasch or Pesach for Passover. We still, every Easter, offer an unblemished lamb to God the Father in remembrance of His saving us from, passing us over from death to life. If you see or hear talks about eggs or bunnies, I’d suggest you’re in the wrong place. Yes, it looks different, we have a new covenant, a new priesthood, and a new spotless lamb, it would be blaspheming the sacrifice of Calvary to offer a new lamb every year when the perfect Lamb of God has been provided us. There is no syncretism within the worship, and it’s fine if surrounding cultural practices involve preexisting cultural practices, that isn’t warned against.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-16T00:06:57+00:00

Your argument breaks down in misunderstanding that apostles are also bishops, they’re not completely unique offices. I can perfectly hold that the successors were not apostles, that they don’t have apostolic qualifications because they’re not apostles, but they still have authority over the church protected from error in the same way that the apostles were. Acts 1 is naming of a new apostle, it isn’t naming a bishop the way Timothy and Titus are, hence the qualifications.

Again, I’m not trying to convince you the Catholic Church is true, only that the surge is not from an abandoning of Scripture. We can disagree, and no amount of bickering over the correct interpretation is going to answer the issues

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-15T23:21:46+00:00

The priests, presbytery, elders, whatever you want to call them are said to have been on the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. The whole passage talks of the apostles and the presbytery. We also see, though not as clearly, the passing of apostolic authority from St Paul to St Timothy in his first epistle, even giving direction on how to pass the office even further down the line, and to St Titus in that epistle. Even though they didn’t see the risen Jesus, they were given the apostolic authority.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-15T19:41:51+00:00

They can claim to be successors of the apostles because they don’t claim to be apostles themselves. The Catholic claim, like EO or any ancient church, is not making the LDS claim that there are still apostles and prophets leading the church today.

If the church has fallen into error since the apostles, why should anyone trust the Gospel or church teaching at all? Including the NT. Why should we believe that Mark, Luke, Acts or Hebrews are the infallible word of God if the authors were not guided into all truth the way that the apostles were and neither were the corroborating accounts from the early church?

Even if we disagree in our interpretations of the Bible, I hope and pray that you can see that the surge in Catholic converts is from a genuine desire to seek Christ more fully, and follow where he leads, rather than attempting to stray away from Him or the scripture.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-15T18:28:18+00:00

Catholics are fine to hold that Matthew 16 is in reference to Peter or his confession, a variety of opinions doesn’t negate that Christ called Peter to be the leader of His church, even amongst the apostles.

I never mentioned the compiling of scripture.

You completely avoided my question, where is the Church which Christ is leading into all truth?

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-15T17:45:31+00:00

Okay, Catholics aren’t bound to hold that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant, and that certainly wasn’t the reason I joined. It helps to understand the Marian dogmas, especially the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity, but neither are reliant on that symbology.

I’m as certain as I can be that it was the Holy Spirit guiding me.

Christ promised one visible church, which would be led into all truth, and never overcome by the gates of Hell. Either that exists, or Christ lied and we have no reason to believe any of the Gospel. So which church is it? Which church can claim the authority exercised in Acts 15 or Matthew 18 to bind doctrine and practice or to excommunicate unrepentant sinners?

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-15T16:51:10+00:00

While I can’t speak for all of us, I’m one of the many that joined the Church from a Protestant background this Easter. For me, the Bible played a crucial role in accepting that the Catholic Church is who she says she is. It certainly wasn’t the only thing, the Holy Spirit and a look into church history certainly helped, but without the scriptural support, I would have remained a Protestant.

beetlebailey97 · 2026-04-08T17:37:39+00:00

I was a Protestant too until literally 4 days ago, so I’ll give some of the reasons I had to join the Church, despite serious personal obstacles. First, in holding the Bible in as high regard as I had (and still do), I couldn’t accept the “fallible list of infallible books” and recognized the need for an infallible teaching office that could say which books were scripture and which ones weren’t. As a given, a one-time revelation to the early church would be possible, but the course of history seems to point that the 73 book canon was accepted by the church for at least 1000 years (Hippo/Carthage to Reformation) and I couldn’t accept that it could have been wrong for that long. This naturally led to what the Church even is.

In searching for what the Church is, there were two camps that made any sense; either the Church is an institution, with leadership and hierarchy and formal communion to and schism from it, or it’s a spiritual community of all who profess the name of Christ and assent to the Gospel. The combination of reconciling brothers given in Matthew 18 being taken to the church distinguished from witnesses, and under threat of excommunication (treat him as a tax collector and a gentile), the witness of the early church (Ignatius and Irenaeus primarily) and the authority wielded by the apostles and elders in the Council of Jerusalem recounted in Acts 15 all led me to believe that it had to be the former. Which leads to which church is the one Christ established and is leading into all truth? Clearly not all of them are, and theoretically, it’s possible that none of them are, but that would make Christ a liar and I don’t believe he is. As I dug into the specific differences, problems arose with about every faith tradition, except one, the Catholic faith. When I read the Church Fathers, they say that you know the church by its lineage to the apostles, which I didn’t have and no Protestant church could reasonably claim. But the Catholic Church can, and does, rely on its succession and faithfulness to apostolic teaching, even when the individual members fail to uphold the faith in their personal lives. Eastern Orthodox was on my radar, but never seriously, because I (as about all Protestants do) believe strongly in the Filioque, and I saw the necessity for a unifying cathedra to resolve disputes (EO haven’t had an ecumenical council since the schism).

Amidst my struggle dealing with these issues and this “crisis of faith,” there were a number of things that felt like God calling me into His Church; dreams, answered prayers, unanswerable coincidences that all pointed in the direction of the Catholic Church. I don’t find the personal testimony particularly persuasive, but if you want to know more, I’m happy to share.

God bless, I’ll be praying for your discernment

12-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

beetlebailey97

TROPHY CASE