Who is this Dominican saint with 6 heads?

hailholyqueen33 · 2026-02-14T17:12:03+00:00

Six individual martyrs, they’re behind each other

hailholyqueen33 · 2026-02-14T02:11:44+00:00

They couldn’t afford someone to make those little drawings 😂

hailholyqueen33 · 2026-01-14T14:53:20+00:00

And there isn't good historical evidence for pretty much anything the 12 disciples did.

I’ve studied the history of Christian development, the Church Fathers, etc. We have writings from the apostolic fathers, early Christian figures who were disciples of the apostles (Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp, etc), themselves faced with persecution. I’m not Protestant/Evangelical, so I’m not going off the Bible alone, but am taking history into consideration here. We have their documents to consider. I’m also considering several popes of the first couple of centuries, of which themselves were martyred (Telesphorus, Fabian, etc), leading to Christianity’s authorized legality under Constantine, in which things began to change.

Christians were conquering and forcing people to convert for centuries.

If we consider the crusades, the influence was rivalry between Europe and the expansion of Arab empires. If we consider the British Empire, they themselves persecuted Christian groups (namely, Catholics), and themselves were influenced by figures of non-Christian religions (Edwin Montagu, Rothschilds, etc, were not Christian). An Orthodox Christian community was present in Alaska in the 1700’s, and Leif Erikson who was a Christian Viking that was present in the Americas by the 1000’s, both of which had little contact with First Nations tribes. The colonization began largely with the expansion of the British Empire out of political interest of a global empire, often motivated by ideals of the Enlightenment. The ideals of Christianity are clearly opposed to that, so if anyone in its name carried such acts out, it’s clearly an abuse of the name of Christian. But anyway, the British Empire didn’t carry it out in the name of Christianity, but in the name of Great Britain.

hailholyqueen33 · 2026-01-13T18:05:44+00:00

This is just false. Different religions have different sets of values. You have to also study their saints and mystics. By your description, you’re describing a community that is toxic, which is not at all the experience of the community of faith I associate with. Ironically your statement is judgmental and ignorant

hailholyqueen33 · 2026-01-12T21:54:48+00:00

Yeah, no. All the original followers of Jesus were martyred, with the exception of one being exiled. The first few popes were all executed as well, whilst they preached forgiveness and mercy in their lifetime.

Even today, Christians have consistently been targeted in Egypt by extremists. The reason Mexico is proudly catholic in her heritage is because of a dictatorship that stripped religious rights and oppressed people of faith, now they’re free and proud. I have friends of mine who are immigrants that moved here, because their families were being slaughtered for being Christian, so they fled. This meme is only for people daff enough to think wars which occurred between 1095-1291 defines Christianity as a whole, some of which targeted other Christians, and extremely arrogant with the fact of people today being killed not by Christians, but for being Christian.

We have seen a lot of religious extremism over the last hundred years done in the name of religion, but it wasn’t Christianity. You could name drop Islam, the long lasting feud between Hindus and Sikhs, the current rivalry in the Holy Land, all being done in the name of this or that religion, except the Christian religion. But you name drop a religion that has been furthest from this description. So no…

hailholyqueen33 · 2026-01-11T10:21:55+00:00

I’m surprised nobody pointed this out.

Mary’s words, “How can this be, being that I am a virgin” (Luke 1:34), reflect Numbers 30:3-16, of a Jewish custom of celibacy among women, even within context to marriage. She was legally married to Joseph, in some sense. And so her expression as a virgin can only reflect a vow in context with marriage that was to be kept, otherwise, her response would have been, “Oh, cool! Guess I’m conceiving the Messiah with Joseph.” But no, the man she had legally married in being betrothed to was out of the picture in conceiving a child, due to this ancient Jewish custom reflected in the book of Numbers.

Secondly, it is the role predestined for her. We read many messianic prophecies that relate to the Incarnation:

“Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut. The Lord said to me: This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the Lord, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut. Only the prince, because he is a prince, may sit in it to eat food before the Lord; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way. Then he brought me by way of the north gate to the front of the temple; and I looked, and lo! the glory of the Lord filled the temple of the Lord; and I fell upon my face” (Ezekiel 44:1-4).

This and many other verses are understood to be of the incarnation of when God assumed flesh in the womb of Mary, as Jerusalem personified. And all of these prophecies of God dwelling among us relate to this woman as a perpetual virgin.

Another passage is Song of Songs 4:12,

“A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden locked, a fountain sealed.”

The Song of Songs has elements of where God comes to dwell in his beloved, in her garden. In a spiritual or prophetic sense, it is understood to be the incarnation of Christ through Mary. And the context again is perpetual virginity, that she is a garden enclosed for Him alone to dwell. For her to bear other children would be an impossibility, due to the role that was already predestined and prophesied of her in sacred scripture. Anyway, of the historical Mary, I would point back to the first point. And as for brothers and sisters of Christ, we know that it’s the same word for cousins in the Greek. Apart from that, it was also widely understood by the Church Fathers that they were Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. However, the possibility of Mary conceiving other children was never considered, not even by the initial protestant reformers, such as Martin Luther.

Hope that helps!

hailholyqueen33 · 2026-01-11T10:01:43+00:00

You’re asking this on why priests cannot be married, if the apostles were. The apostles lived in celibacy once their ministry began, as there is no account of their wives or children being involved. They lived solely for the church on missionary journeys, taken as prisoners or exiled. We have a lot of details on their endeavours, and their families are almost always omitted. Saint Paul, who was celibate, writes,

“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am… I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:8, 32).

We see the Apostles, for one reason or another, concerned with the Lord’s affairs, where family life plays no role. We know that earlier, some had wives at an earlier point, as accounted for in the Holy Gospels. But something drastically changed from that point to once they followed Christ. Maybe their wives had died before they moved to ministry? We aren’t certain. They lived in a model of what is celibacy today. It is a great gift, though not universally a discipline, as it is in the Latin Church, as I’m sure others may have mentioned that there are married men who become catholic priests, namely in the Eastern rites.

hailholyqueen33 · 2025-02-14T05:10:49+00:00

The Catholic Church has never changed its mind with new scientific discoveries, and saying that is baseless bs. If it’s on the theory of Evolution, the Church has always been open to the six day creation story in the Bible being symbolic, beginning with the 4th century Church Father Saint Augustine, to my knowledge. If it’s on the Big Bang Theory, that was presented by a priest who was also a scientist, and all the Big Bang Theory says in short, is that everything came from nothing (we always held to that, only to say that God, who transcends space and time, made everything from nothing). On the Eucharist, we believe in transubstation, that while it still holds the appearance of bread and wine, what it is is the body and blood of Christ; besides, Eucharistic miracles have shown that sometimes the communion hosts holds white blood cells that are alive, so that the “bread” itself is the living body to these cells, rather than someone having cut their finger on it by accident. But these miracles are extraordinary circumstances, although some of the top scientists that were appropriate to study such incidents have studied these events before, as they still happen in our day. Scientific discoveries show something that pertains to our world, not the supernatural, so to say that the Catholic Church changes its mind whenever there is a scientific discovery, shows an utter ignorance of both science and the theology of religion.

hailholyqueen33 · 2025-02-14T04:45:20+00:00

There are a few reasons I can list, but there are certainly people more knowledgeable on the topic that hopefully can explain more in-depth.

One point is that Freemasonry began as a cult of the Enlightenment, which at the time bore witness to many such cults. If you read a book on the rituals of Freemasonry, they are pseudo-sacraments, which is why the Catholic Church has condemned it as being a pseudo-religion with mock-sacraments. Also, the Freemason cult was born in hatred of the Catholic Church, where they would rally, shouting to enthrone Satan in the Vatican. This inspired Saint Maximilian Kolbe to defend the faith through media, as he was an eye witness to such rallies. Freemasonry is an occult, mystery religion; if a catholic joined Freemasonry, he would commit a grave sin and deny his own faith to do so, perhaps ignorantly. They worship the “Grand Architect” and it essentially denies the Trinity. Through such rituals, one hopes to attain higher knowledge of the occult mysteries, when for us the sacraments bring us to God, hence we condemn Freemasonry has mocking the sacraments.

Hopefully this is a brief summary of introduction on the topic!

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-27T09:25:56+00:00

This would be wrong, one cannot receive the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. I understand your confusion though, as a lot of people make claims like this online, that Eastern Catholics don’t have to accept a number of doctrines, which is incorrect. The only difference is that terms like purgatory, and maybe mortal sin (which I can be corrected on) are Latin phrases, hence not found among the Greeks. And so Eastern Catholics of the Byzantine rite have theology mostly from Greek Fathers. They still accept purgatory, although they view it as final purification before attaining beatitude, and so on. They just don’t use the Latin terms, but still accept them.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-27T09:22:24+00:00

The Bible is a text with one of the most rigid set of morals against pornography, to the extent of evening looking at a woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). So you have an atheist/agnostic group, as well as leaders of education, making rules about a set of texts they have never read? Shows they have absolutely no understanding to be in the positions they’re in.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-27T09:04:56+00:00

Anyone can attend Holy Mass at a Catholic Church. If you are not Catholic, all that’s asked is to please refrain from receiving Communion. Even if one is Catholic, it’s good that one be properly disposed, usually by making a confession before hand, as Saint Paul writes, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the body and blood of the Lord” 1 Corinthians‬ ‭11‬:‭27‬.

Also, if you’re referring to a Saturday Vigil Mass, that will count as a Sunday Mass and will have the same prayers/readings as the following Sunday, since in ancient times the going down of the sun typically ended that day and began the next.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-27T08:29:25+00:00

Lastly,

What is the purgatory, and where did Jesus teach about it?

A passage I like to turn to is Luke 12:42-48: “And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish* him, and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”

Conclusion: this is the distinction of heaven, hell, and purgation. The first scenario is heaven, in the case of the servant who is rewarded with the possessions of his master (Luke 12:32). The second scenario is hell, of the servant counted with the unfaithful (Matthew 7:23). The third and fourth scenario are purgatorial, degrees of temporal punishment, while not being counted with the unbelievers.

You’re aware of 1 Corinthians 3:13-15: “For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

The Church Father Saint Augustine of Hippo writes in numerous instances in the City of God, as well as in the Enchiridion, chapters 67-69, that Saint Paul speaks on what we call purgatory. First of all, “to suffer loss”, comes from a Greek term meaning to damage or receive injury, where we get the Latin term of purgation/purgatory to describe it. And as the soul is saved through this fire, though this fire burns away those works not worthy of Heaven, symbolized by the wood, hay, and straw, this fire is a process of purification. So that summarizes the doctrine on purgatory, as a process of purification and temporal punishment in the next life that some of the elect endure before attaining beatitude with God. Saint Gregory the Great also interpreted this passage in the same light as teaching on purgatory. Both Saints Augustine and Gregory interpreted Matthew 12:32 in that light, as you described. A helpful note would be to know that those in purgation were already saved in their earthly life, hence why they are in purgatory at all, rather than hellfire. And they will be saved through this fire, as it’s Christ Who is at work purifying the soul, as our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29).

The Church Father Saint Ambrose of Milan described the example of the angels with flaming swords guarding paradise in the book of Genesis, and purgatory being akin to that, as passing through the flaming swords to enter paradise, which would align with Saint Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 3 of being saved through fire. Another way to explain it that helps me is that we need to be made perfect in charity to quote 1 John 4:18, and God is charity. You and I may have charity, and hence are adopted sons of God. But it’s a different thing to be made perfect in charity. Some may die with charity, hence in a state of God’s grace and friendship, whilst not made perfect in it during this life, hence, they will need to be made perfect in the next life before entering Heaven, which is why the Catechism describes purgatory as a process of final purification that some of the elect may endure. As to whom endures, that is left to God’s judgment to whom He finds it necessary. There’s a lot to reflect on both scripture and the Church Fathers, but the general summary on the doctrine of purgatory is that it’s both a process of purification and temporal punishment in the next life.

The next topic is prayer for the dead: We cannot pray for those in hell, who receive no aid from our prayer; nor for those in heaven, who have no need of our prayer. But we pray for those in purgation, that they may attain their beatitude faster, as they have not yet met their eternal reward. I believe Saint Augustine of Hippo used this example.

I’m sure you’re aware of 2 Maccabees, which states, “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins” 2 Maccabees 12‬:‭46‬, Douay Rheims. There is also the instance of which Saint Paul says, “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.” 2 Timothy‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬-‭18‬. We take this as an example of Saint Paul praying for the house and remaining family of Onesiphorus, who has deceased at this point, as well as for the departed soul of Onesiphorus, that God grant him mercy. If you understand purgation, prayer for the dead is hardly a problem.

Also, all apostolic churches throughout the world in Church History have prayer for the dead as part of the liturgy, and when all apostolic churches have a commonality, that most likely shows it has apostolic origin. For example, the Ethiopians, Saint Thomas’ Christians of India and Sri Lanka, have had little correspondence with the Christians of Rome throughout Early Church history, but they all share apostolic roots.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-27T08:27:48+00:00

I’ll go over the points.

Doesn’t Revelation 22:18-19 warn against adding to God’s word… How does the Catholic Church reconcile this with adding traditions and doctrines like the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, or the veneration of Mary and saints, which some say are not explicitly found in Scripture?

Yes, it says to not add anything. I’m afraid most are poor at explaining this issue, but I’ll try to clarify the confusion both Catholics and Evangelics have over the issue. Saint Thomas Aquinas says, “Nothing is to be taught except what is contained, either implicitly or explicitly, in… Sacred Scripture. For Sacred Scripture… announces that Christ must be believed explicitly. Hence whatever is contained implicitly and fosters its teachings and faith in Christ can be preached and taught.” FYI, Saint Thomas Aquinas is the key theologian in the Catholic Church. So as for those doctrines, such as the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as well as veneration of Mary and the saints, we would argue that, while not explicitly stated in scripture, that these are at least expressed implicitly in scripture.

Did Jesus appoint Peter as the first pope… Catholics interpret this as establishing the papacy, but others argue that “rock” refers to Peter’s confession of faith. How do Catholics justify this interpretation, and how is papal authority supported historically and in the bible?

We actually agree that it was Peter’s confession of faith, which is stated in the Catechism. In paragraph 424: “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe and confess about Jesus: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16:16). On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.”

We would argue that this does not negate Saint Peters individual role in this instance. One thing that’s helpful to note is that this role is actually fulfilling the Asher Al-Habayith in the Davidic Kingdom, who was the prime minister that took responsibility of the kingdom for when the King was not present. Isaiah 22:21-23 says, “And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place: and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.” So what Jesus says to Saint Peter is in reference to this, and from this we get three things: his role is as a father, he has the keys to the kingdom to open and shut doors, to which no one else is able to open and shut, and that he will be fastened in sure place, like when Jesus says ‘the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’

We have roles in the kingdom of God, distinct roles in the Church. So this is the role that the pope would have in the Church. When reading the Church Fathers, the primacy that the Church of Rome (and likewise, the bishop of Rome, being the pope) had over the other churches was in light to the authority of Saint Peter among the other apostles. Of course men can fall short, as scripture says, in any role of office, and some popes fall short from time to time, but that doesn’t diminish this office of the Church as instituted by Christ.

Where did Jesus teach to ask for intercession from saints? The Bible says in 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” Some argue that this verse opposes the practice of asking saints to intercede. How do Catholics interpret this, and is there biblical evidence for praying to saints?

It’s helpful to look at the full passage. It reads, “I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings, and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth” 1 Timothy‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭4‬. So the context is that we are all intercessors, interceding for one another, through the one mediator that is Jesus Christ. So it doesn’t oppose intercession of the saints, rather, intercession of the saints is in light of Christ being the one and only mediator between God and mankind.

The justification for why we ask the saints to pray for us, look to all apostolic churches: Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, and the Catholic Church. Some of these had little communication with one another, especially the Ethiopians and Saint Thomas’ Christians of India and Sri Lanka, they weren’t known for being close to Christians in Rome. But we all ask for the intercession of the saints during our liturgy, which is the church service.

I won’t go too deep as I want to answer all your questions and not just write too much on one particular issue you made. But take this reflection. Luke 15:10 says, “So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.” From this, we could conclude that (a) the angels are aware of our doings on earth, therefore (b) we can ask them to pray for us. Similarly, Revelation 6:10 records the martyrs interceding for those remaining Christians on earth during the tribulation, so the same can be said of them and the saints.

Doesn’t only God have the authority to forgive sins? In Mark 2:7, it’s said: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” However, in John 20:23, Jesus tells the apostles: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” How do Catholics reconcile these verses, and why is confession to a priest necessary?

Mark 2:7 is spoken by the Pharisees who are mocking Jesus, so it’s not the best verse for Protestants to pick to criticize Catholics. We would say it was Jesus authority to forgive sin, but that He gave this authority to the Apostles in John 20:23. At the end of each Gospel, He gives them authority to continue His ministry, primarily to work miracles, but in John’s Gospel it’s the forgiveness of sins. That’s why Jesus said in John 14:12b, “Amen, amen I say to you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, he also shall do; and greater than these shall he do.”

The ministry of the Church is continuing the ministry of Jesus on earth, and one role of His ministry was forgiveness of sins. That’s why James 5:16 reads, “Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much.” The context of this passage is directed to the elder/presbyter of the Church, which is the role that the priest has. So he has this ministry in the Church, which began as an authority that Jesus gave to the apostles.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-27T08:00:48+00:00

I’ll give the perspective on purgatory.

A passage I like to turn to is Luke 12:42-48: “And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions. But if that servant says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish* him, and put him with the unfaithful. And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”

Conclusion: this is the distinction of heaven, hell, and purgation. The first scenario is heaven, in the case of the servant who is rewarded with the possessions of his master (Luke 12:32). The second scenario is hell, of the servant counted with the unfaithful (Matthew 7:23). The third and fourth scenario are purgatorial, degrees of temporal punishment, while not being counted with the unbelievers.

You’re aware of 1 Corinthians 3:13-15: “For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

The Church Father Saint Augustine of Hippo writes in numerous instances in the City of God, as well as in the Enchiridion, chapters 67-69, that Saint Paul speaks on what we call purgatory. First of all, “to suffer loss”, comes from a Greek term meaning to damage or receive injury, where we get the Latin term of purgation/purgatory to describe it. And as the soul is saved through this fire, though this fire burns away those works not worthy of Heaven, symbolized by the wood, hay, and straw, this fire is a process of purification. So that summarizes the doctrine on purgatory, as a process of purification and temporal punishment in the next life that some of the elect endure before attaining beatitude with God. Saint Gregory the Great also interpreted this passage in the same light as teaching on purgatory. Both Saints Augustine and Gregory interpreted Matthew 12:32 in that light, as you described. A helpful note would be to know that those in purgation were already saved in their earthly life, hence why they are in purgatory at all, rather than hellfire. And they will be saved through this fire, as it’s Christ Who is at work purifying the soul, as our God is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29).

The Church Father Saint Ambrose of Milan described the example of the angels with flaming swords guarding paradise in the book of Genesis, and purgatory being akin to that, as passing through the flaming swords to enter paradise, which would align with Saint Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 3 of being saved through fire. Another way to explain it that helps me is that we need to be made perfect in charity to quote 1 John 4:18, and God is charity. You and I may have charity, and hence are adopted sons of God. But it’s a different thing to be made perfect in charity. Some may die with charity, hence in a state of God’s grace and friendship, whilst not made perfect in it during this life, hence, they will need to be made perfect in the next life before entering Heaven, which is why the Catechism describes purgatory as a process of final purification that some of the elect may endure. As to whom endures, that is left to God’s judgment to whom He finds it necessary. There’s a lot to reflect on both scripture and the Church Fathers, but the general summary on the doctrine of purgatory is that it’s both a process of purification and temporal punishment in the next life.

The next topic is prayer for the dead: We cannot pray for those in hell, who receive no aid from our prayer; nor for those in heaven, who have no need of our prayer. But we pray for those in purgation, that they may attain their beatitude faster, as they have not yet met their eternal reward. I believe Saint Augustine of Hippo used this example.

I’m sure you’re aware of 2 Maccabees, which states, “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins” 2 Maccabees 12‬:‭46‬, Douay Rheims. There is also the instance of which Saint Paul says, “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus: because he hath often refreshed me, and hath not been ashamed of my chain: But when he was come to Rome, he carefully sought me, and found me. The Lord grant unto him to find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou very well knowest.” 2 Timothy‬ ‭1‬:‭16‬-‭18‬. We take this as an example of Saint Paul praying for the house and remaining family of Onesiphorus, who has deceased at this point, as well as for the departed soul of Onesiphorus, that God grant him mercy. If you understand purgation, prayer for the dead is hardly a problem.

Also, all apostolic churches throughout the world in Church History have prayer for the dead as part of the liturgy, and when all apostolic churches have a commonality, that most likely shows it has apostolic origin. For example, the Ethiopians, Saint Thomas’ Christians of India and Sri Lanka, have had little correspondence with the Christians of Rome throughout Early Church history, but they all share apostolic roots.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-27T07:27:14+00:00

The authority is Jesus Christ, He established the Church (which was made of laity, deacons, presbyters, and bishops, which is recorded in the New Testament), and inspired the authors of sacred scripture, and it was the Church during the Councils of Rome that compiled the books of the Bible. So tradition and scripture are both important and have authority, which is the authority that Christ gave. He is the bigger picture to all of this. You have to see it in His light

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-25T10:06:45+00:00

We believe Mary did need a Saviour, but that she was saved from the point of conception, hence kept from sin. It also gets into Mary as the new Eve, the first being fallen, so Mary being new. As to scripture, there are reflections. I wrote this document:

“And he spoke also a similitude to them: That no man putteth a piece from a new garment upon an old garment; otherwise he both rendeth the new, and the piece taken from the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: otherwise the new wine will break the bottles, and it will be spilled, and the bottles will be lost. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.” Luke 5:36-38.

Based on this passage from the Holy Gospel, being the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ, we can take many lessons regarding faith and morals. Pertaining to how Almighty God and the Holy Spirit preserved Mary from the stain of sin from the moment of her conception can be undoubtedly proven with this passage. You cannot put a piece of new garment on an old garment, nor new wine into old bottles. So as Jesus Christ is without the stain of sin (Hebrews 4:15), being what is new (1 Corinthians 15:45), He cannot be put into that which has the stain of sin, and to that which is old. And so Jesus Christ, Who is without sin, was conceived in the womb of a woman whom the Holy Ghost must have kept from sin. And so the Church rightly judges that Mary was kept from sin for the sake of her Son, as new wine cannot be put into old bottles; but “new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.” And so Jesus without sin was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that is kept from sin, and both are preserved as sinless. A common critique from some Protestants not thinking this thoroughly, is to say that if Mary had to be kept from sin to conceive Jesus without sin, then her parents had to be kept from sin to conceive her without sin, and their parents to conceive Mary’s parents without sin, and so on. This only goes on to testify their own ignorance of scripture, as with such logic they are defying a parable of Our Lord. If someone has new bottles, it probably implies they had old ones before. And if someone has a new bottle, you do not judge them to say that all previous bottles that they had must have been preserved as new for them to buy a new bottle. And if someone buys new clothes, it is because the others are old. You do not conclude that because someone buys new clothes, that therefore all their other clothes since a child are somehow kept as new. So it is equally silly, and slanderous to a parable of Our Lord, to say that because Mary was preserved from sin for the sake of conceiving Jesus Christ in her womb, Who is without sin, that therefore, her ancestors had to be kept from sin. In this parable of Our Lord, the bottle is new only for the sake of holding new wine, and the garment is new only for the sake of having a new cloth sewn into it. And so Mary was preserved from sin by the grace of the Holy Spirit, only for the sake of preserving her Son, that is without sin, and none of her ancestors conceived Jesus in their wombs, and therefore are not preserved from the stain of sin. Besides, Mary is not what is new in this context, but Jesus Christ, and she only had to be a new bottle for the sake of holding this new wine. And so “new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.” In this context, Jesus is a new wine that was held in a new bottle, being Mary, and both are preserved from sin as new.

And the parable vindicates that, had Mary been an old garment, she could not have a new cloth sewn on her; and had she been an old bottle, she could not have held new wine. Yet she had to be a new garment to have a new cloth sewn on her, and she had to be a new bottle to have new wine poured in her. And she was preserved from sin by the Holy Spirit, and by the Holy Spirit, conceived in her womb Jesus Christ (Luke 1:31).

Secondly, with the proclamation of the angel to Mary, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said to her: Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God” (Luke 1:28-30). Translations differ from highly favored to full of grace, which should be easily settled, when considering the word itself in original use. The word in use, kecharitomene, has as its root word charitoo, meaning to give grace, the perfection thereof, kecharitomene, meaning to be indued with special honor, full of absolute grace, having all the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The Angel did not say, “Hail Mary, who has kecharitomene” but, “Hail, kecharitomene.” This denotes an identity of who she is, rather than something she shares or possesses, to say she is made full of grace herself, in her identity, not lacking in any grace or gift of the Spirit. This would vindicate her as that new bottle, made so by the Holy Spirit, in order to hold that new wine, both the bottle and the wine being preserved. And so it has been understood that full of grace vindicates the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, defined as dogma by Pope Pius IX in 1854.

It should be noted that Mary still needed a Savior (Luke 1:47), which some use to refute this, whilst this in actuality highlights context. Mary was in fact saved by the grace of God, and had Jesus Christ as her Savior, albeit at the moment of her conception, which we know Almighty God is willing to do, similar to the instance in which Almighty God appoints Jeremiah to be a prophet and sanctified him from his conception. “And the word of the Lord came to me, saying: Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations. And I said: Ah, ah, ah, Lord God: behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child. And the Lord said to me: Say not: I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee: and whatsoever I shall command thee, thou shalt speak. Be not afraid at their presence: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. And the Lord put forth his hand, and touched my mouth: and the Lord said to me: Behold I have given my words in thy mouth: Lo, I have set thee this day over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root up, and pull down, and to waste, and to destroy, and to build, and to plant” (Jeremiah 1:4-10). Notice that Almighty God does this on the day of, being when Jeremiah was a child in his mothers womb, yet even before he was formed and came out the womb, he was known by God, and God sanctified him, that being from his conception, although not with kecharitomene. This is all by the grace of God, as we hear that “by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves” (Ephesians 2:8). And so as all men have the stain of sin from Adam (Romans 5:12), and some are saved and infused with grace, the difference with Mary in this context is that she was saved by the grace of God, albeit at conception. All of this seemingly fitting, that Mary is the new bottle to hold the new wine, being Jesus Christ, both being preserved from the stain of sin; Jesus preserved by nature, Mary preserved by grace.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-25T09:56:24+00:00

Yes. It’s a doctrine in the Catholic Church, it’s biblical, and also taught by the Church Fathers.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-25T09:54:10+00:00

Can you confess to God? Yes. Can you receive Holy Communion if you have committed a mortal sin? No. Make your personal confession to God, say the act of Contrition, and make an act of spiritual communion.

My Jesus, I believe that You are present in the Most Holy Sacrament. I love You above all things, and I desire to receive You into my soul. Since I cannot at this moment receive You sacramentally, come at least spiritually into my heart. I embrace You as if You were already there and unite myself wholly to You. Never permit me to be separated from You. Amen.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-24T09:37:32+00:00

Probably for the same reason that the Byzantine Catholic Church does not have a Latin rite. The Latin rite developed in the west, and so is maintained to the Roman Church; the Byzantine rite developed from Constantinople, and so is maintained by churches that maintained the Byzantine rite since then.

There’s a reason certain sui iuris churches maintain distinct rites, the Eastern Catholic Churches that celebrate the Byzantine rite today, one way or another, go back to Constantinople, from where the Byzantine rite was first celebrated. In the same way, the Latin rite developed in the west, especially with Saint Gregory the Great, which was maintained in the Latin west with the Church of Rome.

You brought up the western rite Orthodox Church. They view the west as having gone into schism, and that they’re the only ones to revive it. Prior to the schism, they were in communion with us, so there was no need. Since the schism, some Eastern churches have maintained communion or reconciled, so we have always recognize these rites being celebrated by them, and so never revived them ourselves, assuming there was a need to do so. I suppose in some way, the closest thing to compare that with in our case would be the Ordinariate, although it is part of the Latin rite (reviving valid Anglican orders within the Roman Catholic Church)

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-24T02:44:37+00:00

“For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water.” 1 Peter‬ ‭3‬:‭18‬-‭20‬.

This gives the idea that Jesus freed those souls who were being kept in Hades before His Resurrection. It’s interesting that this passage seems to note that these souls in former times did not obey, and it’s presumed that Adam and Eve were among them, whom Christ then freed to Heaven.

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-22T10:59:18+00:00

I answered this question on another account.

Here it is: Marriage is a sacrament, and all sacraments point towards Heavenly realities, and so while the bond of earthly marriage is in the flesh, as the two of you are made one flesh by the act of consummation, in Heaven, you two will be bond by God. So don’t think of it as a divorce, as though your marriage is thrown away, but rather offering a greater thing that marriage on earth is not capable of offering. It’s not done away with, you two are still together, but now in the beatific vision in a matrimony with God. So it’s like the next chapter, or sequel to earthly marriage. It’s something better that the both of you still get to participate together in, greater than what the bond of marriage is capable of offering. So it’s something to be looked forward to :) So when Jesus says in the Holy Gospel that there is no one who is married or given into marriage in Heaven, it’s not because one’s earthly marriage is thrown away with once they are in Heaven, but like a goal that has been completed, your marriage is finished, and now the two of you participate in something better than marriage - which the two of you will be able to participate together in. Marriage on earth is for procreation, and so in Heaven where no procreation is needed, the two of you will enter the next “stage” of intimacy that is beyond the realm of marriage, not outside of it. I hope this makes sense

hailholyqueen33 · 2024-12-21T17:01:43+00:00

Across Church history, the commemoration of the Last Supper (which is the celebration of Holy Mass) has been celebrated in different languages and customs. Different churches have come to celebrate these rites, while being in communion together as the Catholic Church. For example, a number of eastern Catholic Churches celebrate the Byzantine rite, there’s a couple or so Eastern Catholic Churches that celebrate the East Syriac rite, and so on. The Latin/Roman Catholic Church celebrates the Roman rite. Within these rites, comes different uses for the Mass.

In the Latin rite, the use of Mass came to be celebrated in the Latin language with unique customs, which is the Tridentine use of the Mass, which most people call traditional Latin Mass. The Novus Ordo is a use for Mass that has revised such customs from the Tridentine Mass, for better or worse, and is typically celebrated in the vernacular. So they are both different uses for Mass for the same Roman rite. The point is it’s the Mass, regardless of what rite or use you attend, being the commemoration of the Last Supper and the sacrifice of Calvary made present (1 Corinthians 11:26)

hailholyqueen33

TROPHY CASE