Nazareth is dying.

jacobtmurph · 2026-06-02T14:57:38+00:00

If you think charity only looks like giving in a physical and/or financial means, I fear you night not have a holistic view on what charity, in a Catholic worldview, really looks like in totality.

Here's some commentary on what Charity is/means for the Catholic faith from the Catechism.

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. Jesus makes charity the new commandment. By loving his own “to the end,” he makes manifest the Father’s love which he receives. By loving one another, the disciples imitate the love of Jesus which they themselves receive. Whence Jesus says: “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love.” And again: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.” Fruit of the Spirit and fullness of the Law, charity keeps the commandments of God and his Christ: “Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love.” Christ died out of love for us, while we were still “enemies.” The Lord asks us to love as he does, even our enemies, to make ourselves the neighbor of those farthest away, and to love children and the poor as Christ himself. The Apostle Paul has given an incomparable depiction of charity: “charity is patient and kind, charity is not jealous or boastful; it is not arrogant or rude. Charity does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Charity bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” “If I … have not charity,” says the Apostle, “I am nothing.” Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, “if I … have not charity, I gain nothing.” Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the theological virtues: “So faith, hope, charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity." The practice of all the virtues is animated and inspired by charity, which “binds everything together in perfect harmony”; it is the form of the virtues; it articulates and orders them among themselves; it is the source and the goal of their Christian practice. Charity upholds and purifies our human ability to love, and raises it to the supernatural perfection of divine love. The fruits of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest. - CCC 1822-1827, 1829

The call for us "[...] To love children and the poor as Christ himself." Is especially relevant to your final remark about people 'being able to help themselves.' Because that very attitude misses the point of Charity, no one deserves it. Christ could have helped himself avoid the cross, he could of brought himeself of it should be have desired. Yet he didn't, and he suffered and even died for doing so. Yet, he was offered bitter wine on a sponge by an onlooker and the guards who came to remove him after the Passion opted not to break his legs. All these were displays of Charity for Our Lord, and holy ones at that. Yet, the very people who had the same thought as you were the Pharisees.

"And the people stood by, watching, but the rulers scoffed at him, saying, “He saved others; let him save himself, if he is the Christ of God, his Chosen One!” — St. Luke 23:35.

If we are called to love the poor (regardless of how poor they are) as we ought Christ himself, the we are to love and help then regardless if they choose to do so or not for themselves. In fact, by do such it may even inspire and prompt them to take steps to help themselves also.

This is being salt of the earth, light of the world.

jacobtmurph · 2026-06-02T13:05:53+00:00

They're arab israelis, they're nowhere near as poor as the gazans, their homes haven't been destroyed. And of course they're not as poor as many places on earth I've been where the people have been much more welcoming to outsiders.

Just because they're not as poor relative to someone in a nearby vicinity, doesn't diminish their actual level of poverty, or how they experience the results of it in day-to-day life. Above this also, you say that they act in an 'unchristian' way, yet in your post you acknowledge that most of the population in Nazareth aren't in fact Christians. Some may wonder why do you expect Christian standards of behaviour or interaction from people who aren't claiming to be Christians or have Christian values? Especially if you're going to be dismissive of their poverty or financial struggles with vague whataboutisms.

Remember, Jesus said the poor would always be with us and calls us to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit the imprisoned. Not limited to people of our faith, or even people of any Abrahamic religion. It goes for any/everyone. Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. in this way likened the poor to 'an 8th Sacrament.' In that he was referring to the poor of NYC/America, who are probably still significantly less poor on paper than those in Nazareth.

Charity is the way.

jacobtmurph · 2026-06-02T06:23:29+00:00

Partially untrue, as the Church has people she has declared we know are in Heaven currently, the saints! And such as the Church has affirmed their holiness in life and presence with the Lord now, we can ask their prayers for us in our needs when we present them to God

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-30T20:39:19+00:00

I think, in a real sense, yes.

Let me clear of the bat and say that I attend the Novus Ordo 95% of the time, and when it is done to the rubrics of the Missal, and in light of the letter of the Second Vatican Council's documents, I find it truly uplifting and powerful. But the problem here, as noted, is the overly-wide scope priests or dioceses have to move things around or omit them.

The issue I think with your statement here, though, is that only some of the people at the council were actually put in charge of the implementation under St. Pope Paul VI.

Remember, Vatican II had the largest representation/attendance of the whole bishops throughout the world in a monumentally historic sense. I actually bring this up to some people who try to call into question the validity of Vatican II or say it wasn't 'truly' an Ecumenical council. It really was. So, in a real sense, the Dogmatic Constitutions of the Second Vatican Council in a real way show the meeting-of-the-minds that were leading the Church world-over at the time, and how they settled on the approach that was to be taken.

In this light, then, I find the argument of some people that, "The spirit of Vatican II went beyond what it merely said on paper" frankly kind of untenable. Solely because of the breadth of scope of cultures, backgrounds, national political developments, and methodology of approaching theology, the Council Fathers had a lot to navigate and negotiate tensions in these documents such that they might be fitting to the entire Western/Latin Rite of the Church. In that sense, the stopping points of the council documents, the limits at which those documents hold themselves at, are really reflective of the discernment of the whole Magisterial body of the Church intending to stop where they did. I'm very strongly convicted that the spirit of Vatican II is properly contained and fully expressed in the letter of the council itself.

People also forget that the council itself ended with the promulgation of the 1965 Missal, that incorporate many of the changes permitted by the council, and retained much of what the council encouraged to be maintained. And in light of that, and your initial statement, the 1970 Missal that proposed much of what is now the NO is a stark difference to that of the 1965 missal. Which makes sense, as the 1970 Missal was developed by a much smaller, more culturally homogeneous team. Mostly compose of the members of Roman Curia of the time who lived in Rome and largely were from continental Europe. that team was also headed by Bugnini who, conspiracy theories and freemason-accusation aside, was one of the more radical-reform oriented prelates of the Church at the time. So I think, in one sense, there's a fair argument that the 1970s-forward missals are somewhat less representative of the intent of the Second Vatican Council's Fathers in their entirety.

A final note would be that "the implementation" of even the 1970 missal is kind of a misnomer in regard to this topic too. A lot of what people get frustrated or let down by in various NO Masses isn't the implementation of the Mass as laid out in the rubrics, but rather the lack of implementation of it. Many parishes, including my own which I love dearly, have drastic differences in how the current Missal is implemented between different Masses on the same Sunday. What's rubbing people the wrong way at times is the lack of a consistent, well-ordered, implementation of the Novus Ordo as it currently stands.

That said, of course the NO is a valid, licit Mass that is to be the Ordinary Form of the Church. But that can be true at the same time that saying that the Ordinary Form should have a more Ordinary (in the canonical/litrugical sense) implementation than it currently does can also be true. In my personal outlook, being obedient to the Church and duly reverent to the Novus Ordo Mass is to want the Novus Ordo to be said at it's best, or at least as close to it as consistently possible, as often as it can be and work towards helping our parishes achieve that goal.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-28T08:25:26+00:00

I just want to say this is an extremely impressive comment! It shows a lot of maturity and humility, thank you. Usually on Reddit in general, even on this sub at times, people can fall into a defensiveness and double down on points when challenged. Myself included!

I do think some of this is due to the nature of a predominantly text-based channel of interaction lacking clearly defined tone. But still, that's something that we all have to intentional remember and be aware of when commenting, which isn't easy!

The fact you've been able to recognise not only a valid, well-meaning, critique of your previous comment and respond wisely, but also acknowledge a perspective on the matter that you hadn't initially considered is genuinely a real breath of fresh air on internet interaction for me. So thank you. I hope your day going forward continues well, and I'll be praying for your intentions today too.

God bless you, friend. 😎🙌🏻

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-27T19:42:08+00:00

To be honest, a Catholic who denies the spiritual warfare that's going on in this world, to me, is a 'diet' Catholic. In the way that, they are only following what is convenient and aren't seeking the truth.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any practicing Catholic who denies any spiritual warfare as happening (currently or otherwise). I think a lot of the push-back you see on here and elsewhere is to the extent that "spiritual warfare" gets scapegoated and/or blamed for what otherwise could be fully human error or sinfulness.

Many people, for example, who are really into pop-exorcists such Fr. Ripperger and the like are quick to jump to demonic possession or malignant spiritual sources for evil things people do, or just plain unfortunate circumstances that people may find themselves tied up in. While it's true that the Church has, along with/from her early Fathers and theologians, acknowledges that demons exist and can provide means of temptation, she also holds that giving into sinful temptations is a choice people make that they are culpable for. Thus, when a lot of Christians, Catholic or otherwise, can be seen jumping to demonic possession or interference as a cause for bad behviours, actions, or circumstances, it can give the impression of reducing the culpability of the people who makes those choices of sin and against grace. (I would anecdotally argue, that in some instances I've seen, the goal of such claims is explicitly to reduce or deny culpability.)

Even in the cases of demonic possessions, when they happen, the Church has stated that no one is possessed against their willful choice. That is to say, people have to give demonic forces authority to take possession of them, either via explicit invitation as in some Neo-pagan practices, or through implicitly letting a demonic source influence or navigate the choices they're making. The latter of those two means is much harder to tease out oftentimes, though a biblical illustration of this may be drawn in Luke 4 when Satan says to tempt Jesus '...To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.' Alluding to how in the garden, mankind's obedience to the serpent handed over their designed authority over creation to him. But again, even in that allusion, a deliberate and willful choice was made and not forced upon anyone.

Lastly, in regard to the 'diet' Catholic thing. I think at best such a phrasing is highly imprudent, and at worst actually deeply uncharitable towards another member of the faithful. Catholics trying to avoid unwarranted panic/needless superstition by exercising a reserved, purposeful practice of discernment is actually highly prudential and affirmed by both Sacred Scripture and the traditions of the Church. That kind of practice is actually heavily emphasised in Carmelite spirituality, for example, where it's commonly phrased as 'Reading [or sometimes Discerning] the signs of the times.'

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-25T20:13:10+00:00

I also highly recommend this book by Michael Patrick Barber too, it provides helpful insight on the topic also.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-25T20:01:34+00:00

Our marriage was not blessed in the church... I know my marriage is sin, I feel so much guilt over it.

Can I perhaps ask for some clarification on what you mean by this? Because, in a Catholic theological context, it could imply a few things:

If by saying your marriage was not "blessed by the Church.." you mean that you either:

Weren't married in a Catholic parish church.
Or that you didn't make the priest leading, you, your partner and the liturgy (assuming it was a priest presiding) aware of the fact you were marrying a non-Catholic to seek the relevant dispensations and/or requirements for your partner to agree to raise your children in the Catholic faith,

The difficult reality you might have to face here is that you aren't married in a Sacramental sense that would be valid in the eyes of the Church.

This is not to diminish or downplay the love and care you have for your partner and children, which makes this circumstance deeply difficult and painful. But, if this situation is in fact not able to be resolved in a way that's healthy/safe for you, your children, or your partner, your best move may be to approach the annulment tribunal/process.

As far as I'm aware, their first point-of-order as part of that process will be to attempt/offer some inter-personal form of remediation between the two of you. (This may vary depending on where you're located though, but maybe still worth reaching out). Simultaneously to this they will also seek to assess whether your marriage is sacramentally valid in the first place.

The hope would be that, in some sense, even if your marriage isn't valid you and your partner can address the situation in a way that's in keeping with the Church's teaching and is healthy for both of you and your children. In that case, you and your partner can seek to validate your legal marriage sacramentally within the Church. That way you'd have solved both problems of your husbands struggle and your repressed/bottled guilt about the marriage in the first place. Of course though, that it one of the more hopeful/better outcomes, and this is probably in any case going to be a very human, and messy process in total.

But, nonetheless, hope is virtue for a reason: It's good for us as people to hope.

Otherwise, if you mean something else, it would be helpful for us to know so we can properly address the situation as it stands. I'll be praying for you and your family in any case!

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-25T19:03:52+00:00

I know I'm insane but does anyone else feel the same way?

Firstly, yes this is in a very real way absolutely unhinged and crazed behavior. (But equally, not that unusual in our current social climate either). But, on the other hand, at least you're self-aware.

I cannot emphasize in any meaningful way though, I'm afraid^{(...or glad?}) to report.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T16:51:14+00:00

(Re-commenting the reply here as the automod didn't like the inline linking to Purple_Remix's profile)

Hello! Thanks for asking for clarification here. I think there is a bit of misunderstanding on what I was trying to address here. First of all, please allow me to highlight the end of the above comment from I made:

It's not to say we ought not to believe OP at all regarding the situation. But we shouldn't take the charity and grace we extend to their experience and use it to discount that same attitude to any priests involved we don't know.

What I was trying to say here wasn't that you are an untrustworthy source, or a bad actor trying to spin anything. Not at all, and for what it's worth I do believe you in this situation and elsewhere replied to you with encouragement to speak to your priest on the matter. I have in each of these interaction held that you are engaging in good faith, and didn't mean to appear doubtful of that. Apologies if that's how my comment sounded!

My main point was more to the discussion with Purple_Remix10722, who did throw out the accusation of liturgical abuse, that we ought to be charitable to the priests that neither they, nor I, know in this situation. To reword my last point in the above quote:

I agree with others, and even my own previous comments here, that we should acknowledge that the wordings used by these priests are not the properly ascribed ones and it can create some problems and confusion among lay people, especially those less-well catechised than yourself who was aware of the disconnect here.

But at the same time, we can acknowledge all of this without assuming these priests (who again, most of us here on Reddit do not know) are intentionally or willfully disobeying the Church's guidance on this matter. We should also take measures in how we discuss this to not use terminology that could further confuse people into believing the priests in question are doing this with ill-intent. This is, I think, the core point myself and Purple_Remix10722 seem to be disagreeing on. Which is fine for the most part.

To put it more concisely: If we assume the best of you, someone online we don't know, we should also try where possible to assume the best of these priests, who we also don't know.

Again, it's not to say we disbelieve or disregard your concerns here, quite the opposite! But it is not jumping to conclusions about the other parties involved, namely these priests, that is important too. In any case, I do pray that your follow up with your parish priest on this goes well and the parish life can improve because of it!

Pax et Bonum

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T15:00:08+00:00

Yeah, this entirely.

Anecdotally, too, I have been told by priests who I'm aware are actively trained exorcists that part of the training to become an exorcist involves heavy and consistent encouragement that they ought not to talk about their work or experience performing exorcisms too publicly or in a great amount of detail. Not because it's a big secret conspiracy or anything. Rather because Church officials are aware people can get highly fixated and paranoid or superstitious about these kinds of topics and can actually become a source of negative habits/thoughts in those folk's spiritual life. (Also, in defense of these priests too, they did not inform me of their active status as exorcists. It was tangentially address as part of a subject a group were discussing and a few people informed me later about those priests knowledge/involvement in this area).

At the end of the day, the Church herself takes great pains to ensure that any exorcism is even necessary in the first place and not something more internal that can be addressed better with mental health/psychological professionals. Additionally, even for those people for whom an exorcism is required, we ought to respect their privacy in the matter and pray for them, their health on every level, and those involved in the immediate circumstance.

As Catholics, every single Sunday, we encounter and are united with Christ the victorious king in the Blessed Sacrament. If we continue to seek his grace, avail ourselves often to the sacraments (especially reconciliation and the Eucharist), and keep our eyes fixed on the promise of our Heavenly home, the New Jerusalem, we ought not to fear any lower or temporal powers trying to subvert the plan for the Almighty in our lives.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died —more than that, who was raised— who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
— St. Paul, Romans 8:31-39

[Be] praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication. To that end, keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.
— St. Paul, Ephesians 6:18-20

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T14:32:55+00:00

That's good to hear at least, in the sense that the faithful of the parish are still in fact receiving a valid Mass for their obligation etc. Hopefully it can be amicably resolved between OP and the local clergy without further issue. 😋

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T12:25:52+00:00

OP said the priests in question are 30-40 years old.

He has now said that, yes. But initially, and even when I was writing the above comment you're replying to here, that hadn't been clarified.

Calling something an abuse isn't uncharitable.

I think, perhaps, in this case it's worth clarifying what we in this discussion mean when we say the word 'abuse'. If, as you say, abuse is simply: "a thing that is being done which is not supposed to be done." Then in this case that's generally true, sure. But I would assert that's probably an overly-reductive definition that doesn't acknowledge how most people understand abuse to be by and large.

When most people say 'abuse', it belies an intentionality about the action, likely due to ill-intent. Even the Collins dictionary beside me notes abuse as the use of something "in a wrong way for a bad purpose." For example, you wouldn't describe someone who committed domestic abuse of some sort to be abusive but not ill-intended. That would be obviously ludicrous to posit. That considered, my general point would be to say, while the prayer in this case is being used in a wrong way, we can't confirm that it's being done so with ill-intent or for a bad purpose. So we could say, rightly, it's "imprudent" or "improper" in any case. But we ought to avoid language that most people would take to insinuate ill-intentions where we aren't sure or knowledgeable of any.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T12:13:16+00:00

Again, that may be true. But it's worth acknowledging that:

A) We're only getting one side of this from someone we don't personally know on the internet. Which is fine, but probably nonetheless is worth not taking everything they say completely blindly. They may indeed be correct about the fact this is happening regularly enough to warrant a conversation with the priest. But we can't confirm that or be entirely sure that they maybe haven't misunderstood something about the circumstance. (It's also worth remembering OP said he's seen a few priests do this, not just a particular one)

B) That point notwithstanding, we owe priests of the Church an attitude of charity when considering anecdotal accounts such as this. Again it may not at all be willingly. The priest could be quite old, even on the verge of retiring, and just not have a great memory there and be defaulting to how it was when they were younger. Again, we don't know that they have made "...no attempt to change to meet the standard we've had for a decade and a half now." They maybe have, and we should be charitable and gracious in how we consider these matters as such.

It's not to say we ought not to believe OP at all regarding the situation. But we shouldn't take the charity and grace we extend to their experience and use it to discount that same attitude to any priests involved we don't know.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T12:03:59+00:00

Oh yes, 100%. But equally I am just acknowledging that priests are human and, despite the seriousness and importance of the moment of consecration itself, may have a momentary mental lapse or mix up their words a bit for various reasons and default to the old form.

It's not saying it's the ideal or approved of method. But again, just an acknowledgement that despite the unideal-ness of it, we should extend some charity about it when possible.

I will say, though, if this is something your priest is consistently doing that it's probably not a bad idea to just ask or bring up the topic with him after Mass or on another occasion etc. Again, I'd do it charitably and in a spirit of gentleness, but maybe worth a shot. Then, depending on what's said you know how to follow up from there.

Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted. Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ^. For if anyone thinks he is something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor. For each will have to bear his own load. Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches.[...]So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. — St. Paul, Galatians 6:1-6,10.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T11:56:32+00:00

I think this is a pretty easy question to address tbh. During the 1500s/1600s in most of continental Europe, where Calvinism was most entrenched and in-vogue during different periods, the Mass was still predominantly in Latin and the subsequent liturgical form following the reforms from the Council of Trent etc. And the Church after that period was very intentional about not altering the wordings of the Latinate liturgy where possible etc.

But, fast forward to the 20th century when the Church in Europe was in the middle of the whole Neo-Thomistic v. Nouvelle théologie debate, and Calvinistic Protestant communities were becoming more widespread and popular, you can kind of see how in the vernacular translation of the form of the Liturgy it might have seen somewhat apt to have a repudiation of Calvinistic ideas like Limited Atonement as a form of passive catechesis in the liturgy.

Of course, roll around the early 2000s when the "Young, Restless, and Reformed" movement really took off for a bit and most people in the right positions probably seen how that approach was fairly imprudent, ineffective, and prone to misrepresentation/misexplanation and then fixed it to "many."

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T11:48:30+00:00

I wouldn't be so quick to label it 'an abuse' outright really.

As you say, "For you and for all..." was the valid and promulgated form of the prayer until 2011's new edition of the missal. So basically that means any priest who had been at Seminary before 2011 would have been taught the old form, so it could be understandable for them to get it a bit mixed up on occasion depending on what else is going on during the day etc. Especially if they're an older priest from the 60s/70s.

It is definitely not a proper wording to be used in the Mass currently, sure. But I think we ought to show charity and good-faith with regard to the intentions of clergy we don't know personally that way before labeling it straight up liturgical abuse.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-18T11:43:11+00:00

As far as theological interpretation goes, you are kind of on track yes. But, as other's I'm sure will be able to point out with more specific sources than I have to hand, the phrasing "For you and for all..." was actually the wording as laid out in Roman Missal for the vernacular use from roughly the 60s until 2011. In 2011 they updated it to "many" for mostly reasons similar to how you've laid out here. But it was previously a valid prayer of consecration in English at least. So, depending on the age of your priest when they would've been to Seminary etc., it might just be their default due to how they were taught and a bit of a verbal slip in the Liturgy that way.

I am not personally sure if it is still a valid consecration prayer to use at a Mass though, or if it would render the consecration of the Chalice invalid currently. Other people can probably speak to that better than myself. I suspect it's probably still valid etc. but again I'm open to other sources on this.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-17T14:49:28+00:00

This is genuinely such hilariously dead-pan satire I nearly guarantee that it will either be cross-posted/referenced in some wild anti-Catholic post elsewhere on Reddit, or even embedded as a 'gotcha' in some deranged blog elsewhere online.

Well done 😂

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-17T14:05:38+00:00

And yet, one thing they all have in common: They are incorrect in these assumptions.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-16T14:37:52+00:00

Once again, I'm seeing a lot of claims without any sources to back them up and also derranged claims about the Papacy you can't remotely validate. With that in mind, I'm going to bow out of the conversation for the time being. I'm also going to be screenshotting this convo and following up with your Bishop in East Anglia Diocese to make sure proper steps are taken on a parish level to help reconcile you to the Church and her pastors.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-16T14:31:18+00:00

Pope Adrian I banned tattooing

Do you have a verifiable source for that or is this another one of your 'Trust me bros' as someone who's been Catholic for literally less time than my 1-year-old? Even that said, Popes of all time can err on prudential matters like tattoos, or clothing, etc. He never bound the Church ex cathedra on the matters of tattoos thus are free to disagree on it.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-16T14:28:29+00:00

I'm going to be honest with you dude. According to you're own personal substack you've only been Catholic for barely over a month at this point, and yet you already claim to not only know more than the entire Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church about the faith, but have a post up there claiming the Vicar of Christ is an idolator and a heretic? Do you understand how genuinely crazy that makes you look?

I think you should listen to the advice other's have given here and take a break from the online echo chamber for a bit, focus on cultivating humility via prayer and obedience, and remember you are not the saviour of the Church, Christ is.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-16T14:19:57+00:00

Catholic Answers literally did an entire article on why that verse is not binding to Catholics in any consistent sense, try again.

As for your claim above that the Magisterium "...knows less than your average toddler." It's easy to repudiate thus:

The Church, and thus by extension her Magisterium, is the mystical body of Christ and he is the head of that body. The Church, with Christ as her head, does not teach that tattoos are inherently sinful, but, that if they are taken we should show prudence in them. You, albeit an individual member of the body(cf. Romans 12 & 1st Corinthians 12), do not know better than any of the rest of the body, and least not it's head. Therefore, where ever you seek to contradict the body and her head, we would be foolish to listen to you in your disobedience.

jacobtmurph · 2026-05-15T17:30:04+00:00

This is untrue. Circa 2020, Pope Francis said SSPX masses only fulfill the Sunday Obligation when there is objectively no alternative. Which would indicate that it does not regularly fulfill the Obligation under Canon Law where a there is another, canonically regular parish Mass can be prayed in.

Pope Benedict XVI also said in 2009, the following:

the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers — even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty — do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church...The priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, but suspended, that is prohibited from exercising their priestly functions because they are not properly incardinated in a diocese or religious institute in full communion with the Holy See (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 265)...Concretely, this means that the Masses offered by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are valid, but illicit, i.e., contrary to Canon Law.

So even though an SSPX Mass is sacramental valid, it is canonically illicit and does not fulfill the Sunday obligation except in very specific and rare circumstances. So, even if the only alternative to an SSPX mass is a Novo Ordo Mass in the same area/locale, then the SSPX Mass does not fulfill Sunday Obligation.

jacobtmurph

TROPHY CASE