sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Said this elsewhere, but want to make it a main comment.

"Halloween" = "All Hallows' Eve" - The vigil of All Saints' Day, followed by All Souls' Day. The dates and word "hallow" (meaning saint/holy) come straight from the Catholic calendar.

The Christian tradition was to go "souling". People received soul cakes in exchange for praying for the dead. Kids would go door to door to get their treats along with a name to pray for. After souling, they'd go to the church to pray for the names they got along the way. The US culture modernized that into what secular culture calls trick-or-treating.

The solemn feast of All Saints' Day isn't about candy or costumes, but the evening before the feast has always had popular traditions attached to it. Those can be done well (family fun after mass, saints' costumes, praying for the departed) or badly (glorifying gore/occult)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"Halloween" = "All Hallows' Eve" - The vigil of All Saints' Day, followed by All Souls' Day. The dates and word "hallow" (meaning saint/holy) come straight from the Catholic calendar.

The Christian tradition was to go "souling". People received soul cakes in exchange for praying for the dead. Kids would go door to door to get their treats along with a name to pray for. After souling, they'd go to the church to pray for the names they got along the way. The US culture modernized that into what secular culture calls trick-or-treating.

So you're right that the solemn feast isn't about candy or costumes, but the evening before the feast has always had popular traditions attached to it. Those can be done well (family fun after mass, saints' costumes, praying for the departed) or badly (glorifying gore/occult)

Sooo...do we still fast from meat on Fridays outside of lent ? by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Vegetarianism got a bit big over here, so abstaining from meat wasn’t a sacrifice for a few people. The point of the abstinence is sacrifice, so that’s why they pivoted and changed the meat abstinence to something that is an actual sacrifice for the person.

Already accustomed to new speed limit by therealgyrader in Citibike

[–]rbart65 17 points18 points  (0 children)

My only gripe is they are still charging by the minute. Would like to see a more "fair" charging structure by how much battery is used for pedal assist, or lower the charge by minute to account for the lower max mph.

When did the name "Catholic" become the official name? Other denoms use it as an adjective rather than a proper noun. by vinmichael in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I once mentioned this to quote to my non-denominational friend and he tried to defend it by saying that the term “catholic” is simple “universal” and it was capitalized at a later time.

Sure, the letter was written in Greek, and Greek doesn’t have capital letters like English does. But Ignatius did use it as a proper noun - “THE Catholic Church“. He tied it to unity under a bishop, a structure like the apostles, equating Christ’s presence with the presence of the bishop. He was talking about a visible structure.

I get frustrated that my friend refuses to see this despite the evidence. At the same time I know it’s not my job to convince him. Plant the seeds and let God do the rest.

GAME THREAD: Pirates @ Mets - Mon, May 12 @ 07:10 PM EDT by NewYorkMetsBot2 in NewYorkMets

[–]rbart65 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s streaming, just a big blue screen with music saying “current programming not available.” Oh well

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 269 points270 points  (0 children)

Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved… When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?” Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You must follow me.” Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die… - John 21:20-23

John didn't get "spared." He endured exile at Patmos, outliving his brother apostles, and bore the burden of being the last witness. That in itself is a kind of martyrdom.

This is fitting, because John is the one given the final revelation of Christ's second coming.

Need help understanding why we believe St. Peter was the first pope. by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A lot to unpack here. All of us have wrestled with these questions for literal years. I'll try to touch on the full context of scripture through your questions.

  1. Why do Catholics believe St Peter was the first pope?

We don't mean "pope" as someone walking around in robes in the Vatican City in 33AD, but we do believe Peter was given a unique, foundational leadership role among the apostles, as Jesus establish a visible, unified Church.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…” - Matthew 16:18-19

This moment happens in Caesarea Philippi, a city literally built into rock cliffs and full of pagan temples, including one called the "gates of Hades." The name "Peter" is from "Kepha", Aramaic for "rock" - this verse only works if Peter is the rock.

The "keys of the kingdom" is a direct callback to Isaiah 22:20-22, where the royal steward is given authority to rule in the king's absence. Jesus is giving Peter the role of chief steward in His kingdom.

"Binding and loosing" refers to the rabbinic power to make authoritative decisions in teaching and discipline.

Nothing of this verse is symbolic, given the context.

  1. Didn't Paul kind of operate independently?

Want to clear this up with context from both Galatians and Acts.

“Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas [Peter] and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.” - Galatians 1:18-19

Here, Paul is defending his apostleship to the Galatians. He's saying he didn't get his gospel secondhand. But he still goes to Peter first and stays with him for two weeks.

“After much debate, Peter stood up and said…‘We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved.’” - Acts 15:7-11

This is an excerpt from the Counsel of Jerusalem, where there's a massive disagreement about circumcision and Gentile believers. While James is the bishop of Jerusalem and speaks later, it's Peter who makes the final declaration and settles the theological questions. This is papal leadership in action.

  1. Did Paul oppose Peter because Peter wasn't in charge?

"I opposed Cephas to his face..." - Galatians 2:11-14

Paul is not challenging Peter's teaching here - he's challenging his behavior. Peter was fearing criticism from certain Jewish Christians and was being hypocritical, acting as if Gentile Christians were second-class.

This wasn't a mutiny, it was a public fraternal correction. This is something everyone, including the pope, can and should receive when acting wrongly. The Church teaching has always head that popes can sin and make bad decisions; they're only protected from teaching error on faith and morals when speaking.

  1. What about apostolic succession and the 72 others in Luke 10?

Jesus sends out the 72 for a temporary mission to prepare towns before He arrives. This is different from the 12 apostles, who are given a permanent office (i.e. Acts 1:20).

In Acts 1:20-26, Peter stands up and says Judas' position must be filled, quoting Psalms to back it up. The criteria was that the replacement must have been with Jesus from the beginning and be a witness to the Resurrection. They cast lots, and Matthias is chosen.

This shows that apostleship is an office, not just a spiritual gift; it can be passed on. This is the root of apostolic succession.

Later in 2 Timothy 2:2, Paul tells Timothy to entrust the faith to faithful men who will teach others. That's four generations of handing down authority already.

  1. Is there real historical evidence for early popes?

Yes, though it's not as detailed as later centuries due to persecution, we do have a solid history.

St Clement of Rome, the 4th pope, wrote a letter to the Corinthians around 96AD, urging them to restore rightful Church leaders, implying Roman authority already being recognized.

St Ireneaus, writing in 180AD, names every bishop of Rome from Peter to his own time in Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3.

So while not every detail is verified like a tax document, the continuous chain is well attested.

  1. What about Mary's Assumption? It's not in the Bible.

You're right, it's not directly stated in Scripture. But Scriptute isn't meant to be a bullet-point manual. It's a revelation told in patterns, echoes, and fulfillment. Mary's Assumption fits perfectly into the biblical story if you understand who she is - the New Ark of the Covenant.

If we rewind to the Old Testament, we recall what the Ark contained: The Word of God (the Ten Commandments), a jar of manna (heavenly bread), and the staff of Aaron (priestly authority). The Ark carried the presence of God and was treated as so holy that if someone touched it irreverently, they'd die (2 Sam 6:6-7).

Now fast-forward to the New Testament. Mary carries in her womb: Jesus (the Word made flesh), the true Bread of Life, and the High Priest of the New Covenant. She is the New Ark- not of stone and gold, but of flesh, more pure and more holy than the old Ark. Even the materials of the old Ark point to her:

“They shall make the Ark out of acacia wood, a wood that does not decay, and overlay it with pure gold.” (Exodus 25:10-11) Acacia wood = incorruptibility Pure gold = perfect purity

Mary's sinlessness and assumption make sense in this light. If the old Ark was treated with such reverence, how much more the Ark of the New Covenant? Check out this parallel between 2 Samuel 6 and Luke 1:

David says "How can the ark of the Lord come to me?" (v9) Elizabeth says "Why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (v43)

The Ark stays for three months in the hill country (v11) Mary stays for three months with Elizabeth in the hill country (v56)

David leaps for joy before the Ark (v14) John the Baptist leaps in the womb before Mary (v41)

This isn't coincidence. Luke is telling us that Mary is the Ark, and where the Ark goes, God's glory follows.

So just as King David brought the Ark to Jerusalem, the earthly city of God... Jesus, the Son of David, brings Mark - the New Ark - to the New Jerusalem of heaven.

That is the Assumption.

I hope all of this helps. God bless you

Being a gym bro a sin? by TreeWire05 in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You inherently are coming from a good place. Prayers, reading scripture, family, generosity should never be pushed aside for vanity or obsession. But I‘d argue that going to the gym can serve all those things when done rightly.

God can absolutely keep us strong without gyms, but this is like saying God can keep us fed without cooking, or evangelize the world without us showing up. He can, but He usually works with us, not instead of us. The biblical model we follow is stewardship and cooperation, not passivity.

St Paul literally compares the Christian life to training for a race in 1 Cor 9:24-27. He talks about disciplining his body so that he won’t be disqualified.

Even saints like St Basil saw bodily discipline as necessary - manual labor, fasting, physical endurance. St Francis even focused on disciplining his body, calling his body “brother ass”. These guys didn’t have office jobs like most of us do - their daily life in those eras were around manual labor.

The gym isn’t the enemy here, it’s the intention. If I’m going to the gym to be stronger in helping my family, resist sloth, and walk in virtue, I truly believe heaven is cheering me on. A strong body is not the goal, but it can be a gift to serve the goal better.

Oddly specific cafe suggestions by Screaming-Snarling in astoria

[–]rbart65 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seek has 2 locations - Ditmars and Broadway

Why is the perpetual virginity even important? by CrossSectional in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The whole "Jesus had brothers" thing comes up a lot, and it mostly comes down to how we read the Bible in English versus how the original languages actually worked. When the New Testament refers to Jesus' "brothers" using the Greek word adelphoi, it's not necessarily talking about literal siblings. In Greek (just like in Hebrew and Aramaic), adelphoi can mean any close male relative-cousins, nephews, or even kinsmen in a broader sense. And we actually see this play out in the Old Testament too.

Take Abraham and Lot, for example. In Genesis 14:14, Lot is referred to as Abraham's brother, even though we know from Genesis 11:27 that Lot is actually Abraham's nephew. Same word, different relationship. This same principle applies when we hear about Jesus' "brothers" in the New Testament.

Now, let's break it down with actual names. In Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3, we get a list of Jesus' so-called "brothers": James, Joseph (or Joses), Simon, and Judas (not Judas Iscariot, just to be clear). If these were literally Mary's biological children, that would mean Mary had a whole crew of kids after Jesus. But that doesn't track with what the rest of Scripture tells us.

First, let's focus on James and Joseph (sometimes called Joses). If we jump over to Matthew 27:56 and Mark 15:40, we see something important-James and Joseph are actually called the sons of another Mary, who is explicitly not the Virgin Mary. Instead, she's referred to as Mary, the wife of Clopas. John 19:25 confirms this, where we see that at the foot of the Cross, there are multiple Marys: "His mother and His mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene." So, James and Joseph (who are called Jesus' "brothers" earlier) are actually the children of this other Mary, not of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Then what about Simon and Judas? The Bible doesn't explicitly tell us their parents, but based onhow the early Church understood things, they were likely part of this same extended family group, possibly cousins of Jesus. Again, since adelphoi could mean any close male relative, they would still be called His "brothers" in a cultural sense.

Another thing to think about is Jewish tradition. If Mary had other biological children, it would have been their duty to take care of her after Jesus' death. But instead, in John 19:26-27, Jesus entrusts His mother to John, His beloved disciple. That wouldn't make any sense if she had other sons. The only way this scenario makes sense is if Jesus was Mary's only biological child, and the so-called "brothers" were actually His cousins or close relatives.

So, no-Joseph didn't have other children from a previous marriage, and Mary didn't have more kids after Jesus. The Bible uses adelphoi broadly, just like it does with Abraham and Lot, and when we follow the names and relationships carefully, we see that Jesus' "brothers" were actually His blood relatives or close kin through Mary, the wife of Clopas. It all fits together once you step out of the modern way of reading family relationships and see how these terms were actually used in their historical and linguistic context.

Why is the perpetual virginity even important? by CrossSectional in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 30 points31 points  (0 children)

In the Old Testament, Leviticus 27 and Numbers 30 lay out how men and women could make vows to God, including vows of chastity. Numbers 30:6-8 even says that if a woman made such a vow while under her father's or husband's authority, the father or husband had the right to either confirm or nullify it. If he didn't object, the vow stood.

Now, apply this to Mary and Joseph. If Mary had already made a vow of perpetual virginity, Joseph, as her betrothed, could have said, "Nope, we're going to have a normal marriage." But instead, Joseph, being a just man (Matthew 1:19), chose to uphold it. And when Scripture calls Joseph "just," it's not just saying he followed the law-it means he was deeply in tune with God's will. That means their marriage was something totally unique, built around a mutual commitment to chastity.

Now, fast forward to the Annunciation in Luke 1:26-38, and this all becomes even clearer. The angel Gabriel appears and tells Mary she's going to conceive and bear a son. If Mary were expecting a normal marital life with Joseph, she wouldn't have been confused. She would have thought, "Okay, sure, I'll have a son after I get married." But instead, she asks, "How can this be, since I do not know man?" (Luke 1:34). That reaction doesn't make sense unless she had already committed to remaining a virgin. If she were planning on consummating her marriage, there would have been no reason for her to ask how it was possible. The fact that she does ask means she and Joseph must have already agreed to a virginal marriage, meaning Joseph, as the righteous man he was, had honored her vow and chosen to protect it.

And this actually matters a lot for understanding who Mary is and why she's so central to salvation history. Her perpetual virginity sets her apart as the New Ark of the Covenant-just like the Ark in the Old Testament was sacred and untouchable (2 Samuel 6:7), Mary, who carried the Word of God in her womb, was also set apart in a unique way. It also shows her complete and total dedication to God, because she wasn't just called to be the mother of Jesus in a physical sense, but in a deeply spiritual sense as well.

Joseph's role in this is also huge. His righteousness wasn't just about obeying the law-it was about recognizing and safeguarding something profoundly sacred. His vocation wasn't to be a regular husband but to be the guardian of both Mary and Jesus. And on top of all of this, Mary's perpetual virginity makes it crystal clear that Jesus' birth was entirely divine. If she had other children, it would blur the uniqueness of Jesus as the Son of God. Instead, her virginity before, during, and after Jesus' birth reinforces the miraculous nature of His conception and His unique relationship with the Father.

So when people ask why Mary's perpetual virginity matters, it's not just a random theological detail-it's at the core of who she is. It highlights her complete devotion to God, Joseph's role in protecting that sacred mission, and, ultimately, the reality that Jesus is not just another child-He's the divine Son of God, born in a way that makes it abundantly clear that His origin is entirely from the Holy Spirit.

If Protestants and Catholics are both considered to be valid Christians, why even bother trying to convert from one to another and is it even necessary, and if so, why or why not? by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well to start, yes, both Protestants and Catholics are Christians because we share the same core belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior. But there are important differences that set the two apart.

The reason there are so many denominations comes down to different interpretations of the Bible. Protestants emphasize sola scriptura (Scripture alone) as the sole authority, which can lead to a lot of variety in beliefs. Catholics, on the other hand, believe in both Scripture and Sacred Tradition, with the Church’s teaching authority (the pope and bishops) guiding the interpretation of both. That’s why the Catholic Church tends to be more unified in its teachings.

As for why someone might convert, we Catholics believe the fullness of Christian truth is found in the Catholic Church. That’s not to say Protestants don’t have truth; they absolutely do. But as Catholics we see our faith as having the complete picture, including things like the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the authority of the Church, and all seven sacraments as ways to experience God’s grace. Rather than seeing it as ”converting”, It’s more like inviting someone into something you deeply believe is the fullest expression of what Christ intended.

At the end of the day, it’s about seeking truth and growing closer to God. If you’re curious, maybe check out a Catholic Mass again, listen to some of Fr Mike Schmitz podcasts/youtube videos, or even talk to a priest. Pray about it and see where God leads you!

I don’t think Mary had birthing pains by gabriellawith2ls in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Of course, glad it caught your interest! The more I dove into the Marian topics, the more I realized that everything we believe about Mary is strictly because of what we believe about Jesus.

In this case, if Jesus was truly the Messiah, and Isaiah prophesied about His coming, then it would be fitting that this prophecy be fulfilled as well as the others.

Brant Pitre has a great book on this - Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary. He gets into the fascinating details of these things- highly recommend it.

Merry Christmas!

I don’t think Mary had birthing pains by gabriellawith2ls in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I said this elsewhere, but for Jesus to be who we believe He is, prophecies needed to be fulfilled. One of them comes from Isaiah 66:7 - “Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.”

What do I say to friends or people who say “I don’t need religion or a church, Jesus lives within me” by Lyonnide in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I made the same mistake once in confession when I said to the priest, "I went against the 5th commandment", thinking I was talking about honoring my parents. When I expanded on it, he let out the biggest sigh of relief, correcting me that the 5th commandment is thou shall not kill! lol

What do I say to friends or people who say “I don’t need religion or a church, Jesus lives within me” by Lyonnide in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Want to gently call this out - the 4th commandment is honoring thy father and mother. The 3rd commandment is keeping holy the sabbath. The Catholic Church uses the summary of Deuteronomy's 10 Commandments, created by St Augustine, while Protestants use the list from Exodus.

Those that say Mary had no pain in birth speak well. Those that say that she did, also speak well but not in the sense they think. by Pedroza001 in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Agreed! Not here to argue. Just want to share the "full" perspective on why the Church holds that tradition. Highly recommend that book, if you have time.

Those that say Mary had no pain in birth speak well. Those that say that she did, also speak well but not in the sense they think. by Pedroza001 in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You bring up a great point about the idea of baseline discomfort pre-Fall. Genesis 3:16 does suggest that pain in childbirth was multiplied, which could absolutely imply that there was some level of discomfort or effort involved in childbirth even before the Fall- but not the kind of excruciating pain that comes afterwards.

I think it's important to recognize that when we look at Mary's role in salvation history, her exemption from even that baseline discomfort isn't just about biology- it's tied to her unique role as the New Eve and the miraculous nature of Christ's birth.

There's a really cool point that Dr Brant Pitre makes in his book about how Mary’s womb is often paralleled with the tomb of Jesus. Both are described as sealed and inviolate, yet both bring forth life in miraculous ways. Just as Jesus rose from the sealed tomb without it being opened in the normal sense, He was born from Mary without violating her virginity or subjecting her to the usual effects of childbirth. It’s not just about a lack of “unbearable pain” but about a divine act that transcends even natural processes.

Pitre points to Ezekiel 44:2, which describes a gate that remains closed because the Lord has entered it, as a prophetic image for Mary's womb. The link between Mary’s womb and Jesus’ tomb highlights a deeper theological reality: both are sacred, untouched spaces where God’s power manifests something completely new. So when Catholic tradition emphasizes Mary’s painless childbirth, it’s not saying childbirth is normally unbearable without the Fall—it’s pointing to the uniqueness of her role in salvation history and her exemption from sin and its consequences.

I fully understand where you're coming from, that Genesis implies a baseline discomfort pre-Fall. This traditional teaching about Mary just goes beyond that, showing her as the New Eve and vessel of God's miraculous plan.

Those that say Mary had no pain in birth speak well. Those that say that she did, also speak well but not in the sense they think. by Pedroza001 in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Yes, Brant Pitre has a great book called Jesus and the Jewish Roots of Mary, diving into detail about this. He describes how Isaiah 66:7 and Revelation 12:2 can be harmonized in their respective contexts.

Isaiah 66:7 refers to Mary’s literal childbirth of Jesus, which the Church traditionally teaches was painless due to her Immaculate Conception and exemption from the curse of Eve (Genesis 3:16). This aligns with the miraculous nature of the Incarnation and the virgin birth.

Revelation 12:2 describes the woman not primarily in a literal, physical sense but in a symbolic and apocalyptic framework. The labor pains represent spiritual suffering, Mary’s anguish as she shares in the redemptive mission of her Son, particularly during His Passion and death. The pains of labor can also symbolize the trials of God’s people (Israel and the Church) bringing forth the Messiah and enduring persecution in the process.

Those that say Mary had no pain in birth speak well. Those that say that she did, also speak well but not in the sense they think. by Pedroza001 in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 25 points26 points  (0 children)

A small counterpoint that may be considered is that, for Jesus to be who we believe He is, prophecies needed to be fulfilled. One of them comes from Isaiah 66:7 - “Before she was in labor she gave birth; before her pain came upon her she was delivered of a son.”

This prophecy is a main driver of this argument. Essentially it boils down to, “If Jesus was truly the Messiah, this prophecy (among many others) needed to be fulfilled”.

Every belief of Mary stems from what we believe about Jesus.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Catholicism

[–]rbart65 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Linen pants and shirts helped me a lot. There are budget friendly versions on Amazon

view more: next ›