In Romans 3:23, Scripture states that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," a point emphasized throughout the New Testament regarding the universal human condition. However, the Catholic Church dogma of Papal Infallibility (defined during Vatican I) suggests that under specific conditions (ex cathedra), the Pope is preserved from error. From a Catholic theological perspective: Does the Church distinguish between impeccability (sinlessness) and infallibility (erroneous teaching)? If the Pope is considered a "sinner" like any other man, what is the scriptural or tradition-based mechanism that prevents his fallen nature from affecting these specific formal definitions of faith and morals? I am looking for an explanation of how these two concepts coexist in Catholic teaching without contradicting the biblical narrative of universal human fallibility

Did St. Rose of Lima (✝1617)—called the Patroness of the Americas and the 1st canonized saint of the Americas—know about (or have a devotion to) Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531), called the Empress of the Americas (*Emperatriz de las Américas* )?

I hope one of you can answer a theological question I have! My question is: how are sins of thought, and sins depicted in media, distinguished by species/kind? As an example: let’s imagine a person watched a horror movie that had graphic scenes of murder and torture. Since those are two distinct ‘species’, or ‘kinds’ of sin in real life, are they also distinct sins when consumed through media? And my question is the same in regard to sins of thought: as an example, let’s say a person indulged impure thoughts. Is their species, or kind, simply a ‘lustful thought’? Or are they distinguished by the thoughts’ contents (ex. Adultery, rape, etc.)? Those are just two examples, but my question pertains to all instances where thoughts, or media consumption, are sinful. This question is also important in regards to the sacrament of Confession. As Catholics, we are obliged to confess our mortal sins in “number and kind”—how are these sins distinguished by “kind”, so we know how to properly confess them (in the event they are mortally sinful)? Is there any church teaching or definite answer on this matter that you can reference? Thank you and may God bless you all!

I find the Catholic title "Mother of God" for the Virgin Mary confusing. It is clear that she was the mother of Jesus, the Son. But the title suggests (indeed, not literally, but still) that Mary is mother of God as a Trinity. Is that correct? If so, it creates the problem that a human (or is there reason to say that Mary wasn't (entirely) human?) gave birth to God, while God created mankind. This problem doesn't exist when Mary is only mother of Jesus, because then it could be merely a way of speaking to say that Mary was the one through whom the Word became flesh, which would be the Protestant view as described in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/15779/5729

I am an Assemblies of God protestant and am very close friends with a catholic girl. Would cross denominational marriage like this be a good idea? I know that the bible says to not be unequally yoked. But my relationship with her is literally shaking all of what I thought I've known as sure facts in my beliefs. Have any cross denominational marriages worked out in the past? What does the bible have to say about cross denominational marriages?

Have any Catholic theologians thought that those who die with only Original Sin go to purgatory (not limbo)? related question: "Limbo part of purgatory? "

In Romans 3:8, Paul teaches that it is wrong to do evil to achieve good: > And why not say—as we are accused and as some claim we say—that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve. This principle is explicitly reaffirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1789 . However, in Catholicism, a distinction is drawn between *physical evil* and *moral evil*. "Physical evil" is what St. Thomas Aquinas would call "corruption* and defect" ("*corruptio et defectus*"), corruption being the change from existence to non-existence.**
*cf. "What are “generation and corruption” in Aristotle's philosophy? "
\*\**Summa contra Gentiles* III cap. 71 ("That divine providence does not entirely exclude evil from things") **According to Catholicism, is it ever permissible to produce physical evil so that good may result?** My understanding is that the answer is yes. For example, when performing a medical surgery, it is acceptable for the surgeon to intentionally damage the patient's skin (physical evil) as a means to saving the patient's life (a good end). I want to make sure I'm thinking about this correctly. I would most appreciate answers drawing on quotes from the Magisterium, but I'd also appreciate relevant quotes from Catholic theologians.

Can somebody explain to me the Catholic view of Transubstantiation and why it is important? Because with my understanding of it, the priests pray over the bread and wine and it turns into the literal blood and body of Jesus, but still looks the same. I know that in Matthew 26:26-29 it says about Jesus saying that the bread and wine was his body and blood but I thought that that was meant in a metaphorical sense. If the bread and the wine does actually turn into the body and the blood of Jesus, what difference does that make compared to a protestant's communion other than the reverence you would give or any of the rituals done. As a Pentacostal we celebrate communion in my church; drinking grape juice and eating crackers in remembrance of What Jesus did for us. I'm not opposed to other views on the matter, I'm just curious.

I am looking for the name of the cathedral that contains the following mural. What I know for sure is: - That it has been done between 2004 and 2008, more likely in 2008. - It was made in a Catholic cathedral of a Spanish speaking country. - The original file name is "2B CS.jpg" What I think I know is: - It was a city in Latin America. - The city is on or near the seashore.

Is it true that some of the Catholic saints did not exist at all? I am told that St. George with the dragon did not exist at all! Thanks.

In the Liturgy of the hours I found a very strange text that looks like heresy to me. It is written by Tertullian, who actually joined the Montanists. This text is really confusing. To me the text sounds like "personal prayer, not Mass, is the new form of sacrifice". I dont know what he is saying at all. I have been told that Mass is the new sacrifice. I read this text as if he was saying Mass isn't even important. What is he saying in this text and why is included in the Liturgy of the hours? Second Reading From the treatise On Prayer by Tertullian: priest: The spiritual offering of prayer >Prayer is the offering in spirit that has done away with the sacrifices of old. What good do I receive from the multiplicity of your sacrifices? asks God. I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams, and I do not want the fat of lambs and the blood of bulls and goats. Who has asked for these from your hands? >What God has asked for we learn from the Gospel. The hour will come, he says, when true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth. God is a spirit, and so he looks for worshippers who are like himself. >We are true worshippers and true priests. We pray in spirit, and so offer in spirit the sacrifice of prayer. Prayer is an offering that belongs to God and is acceptable to him: it is the offering he has asked for, the offering he planned as his own. >We must dedicate this offering with our whole heart, we must fatten it on faith, tend it by truth, keep it unblemished through innocence and clean through chastity, and crown it with love. We must escort it to the altar of God in a procession of good works to the sound of psalms and hymns. Then it will gain for us all that we ask of God. >Since God asks for prayer offered in spirit and in truth, how can he deny anything to this kind of prayer? How great is the evidence of its power, as we read and hear and believe. >Of old, prayer was able to rescue from fire and beasts and hunger, even before it received its perfection from Christ. How much greater then is the power of Christian prayer. No longer does prayer bring an angel of comfort to the heart of a fiery furnace, or close up the mouths of lions, or transport to the hungry food from the fields. No longer does it remove all sense of pain by the grace it wins for others. But it gives the armour of patience to those who suffer, who feel pain, who are distressed. It strengthens the power of grace, so that faith may know what it is gaining from the Lord, and understand what it is suffering for the name of God. >In the past prayer was able to bring down punishment, rout armies, withhold the blessing of rain. Now, however, the prayer of the just turns aside the whole anger of God, keeps vigil for its enemies, pleads for persecutors. Is it any wonder that it can call down water from heaven when it could obtain fire from heaven as well? Prayer is the one thing that can conquer God. But Christ has willed that it should work no evil, and has given it all power over good. >Its only art is to call back the souls of the dead from the very journey into death, to give strength to the weak, to heal the sick, to exorcise the possessed, to open prison cells, to free the innocent from their chains. Prayer cleanses from sin, drives away temptations, stamps out persecutions, comforts the fainthearted, gives new strength to the courageous, brings travellers safely home, calms the waves, confounds robbers, feeds the poor, overrules the rich, lifts up the fallen, supports those who are falling, sustains those who stand firm. >All the angels pray. Every creature prays. Cattle and wild beasts pray and bend the knee. As they come from their barns and caves they look out to heaven and call out, lifting up their spirit in their own fashion. The birds too rise and lift themselves up to heaven: they open out their wings, instead of hands, in the form of a cross, and give voice to what seems to be a prayer. >What more need be said on the duty of prayer? Even the Lord himself prayed. To him be honour and power for ever and ever. Amen.

In Catholicism, is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty > >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. > >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there, that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects, or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.

Agustín Fernández de San Vicente, Canon of the Cathedral of Durango, traveled in 1822 to California as a political emissary. He was a gambler and a dandy who, unsurprisingly, dressed better than the mendicant friars ministering to Californians at the time: > ... the canon's attire was really striking and colorful. His outfit was reddish in color. Whenever some girl or woman would be taken aback by the splendor and colors of his outfit, she would ask, "Who is that man?" [_Testimonio of Juana Machado_, in Beebe and Senkewicz] > > He wears a small calotte, a blue frock coat and a three-cornered hat.... [_The Khlebnikov Archive_] It's not clear to me whether the two quotes describe the same outfit. Traveling through California and conducting meetings with local officials, would the canon have worn some kind of clerical clothing, vestments, or some other non-church clothing? Would his cathedral college have entitled him to fancier clothing than a parish priest of the same diocese?

In the Book of Acts chapter 1, the name of Mary is only mention in one verse. >All these devoted themselves with one accord to prayer, together with some women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers.-Acts1:14 Is there any Early Church Fathers, Church Fathers, Theologians, Saints or Catholic Church teachings describing the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Upper Room? We know that the Catholic Church proclaimed Mary as the "Mother of the Church". Mary plays an important role in giving birth to Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. It follows that, if Mary gave birth to the Head of the Church, and to become the Mother of the Church, She must also give birth to the Church, the Body of Christ. We can also see, that in Mary's presence, in Her visitation to Elizabeth, at Her "greetings", John leaped and Elizabeth were filled with the Holy Spirit. **Is there any Catholic Church writings or doctrines describing the important role of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Upper Room?**

### Background: In the final vision of the Book of Ezekiel, the prophet describes a detailed restoration of a Temple and its sacrificial system. There are two relevant elements in these chapters: * **A Temple:** Ezekiel 40–48 describes a massive, precise architectural layout for a Temple which, to date, has never actually been constructed according to these specifications: > "In the visions of God he brought me to the land of Israel and set me down upon a very high mountain, on which was a structure like a city to the south." — **Ezekiel 40:2** * **A Prince and Sin Offerings:** The text describes a "prince" (*nasi*) who offers sin sacrifices for his own atonement and that of his people: > "On that day the prince shall provide for himself and all the people of the land a young bull for a sin offering." — **Ezekiel 45:22** ### Question How does the Catholic church/Catholic theologians reconcile the description of animal sacrifices and a physical Temple in Ezekiel 44–46 with the New Testament teaching that Christ is the final, sufficient sacrifice?

As stated into the Catechism > **CCC 1996:** Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. and also > **CCC 1997:** Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. Grace is the action of God, through the Holy Spirit, of sanctifying the soul, i.e. transforming it to be in conformitiy with God. Thus, my question is how can we talk about God disposing greater graces to some or lesser graces to others? And if its only a "matter of language", how can we talk about some saints being greater or lesser than others, e.g. The Blessed Virgin Mary being the Most Holy and greatest of all saints?

One of the key differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the practice of prayer to saints in heaven, which encouraged in Catholicism but absent in Protestantism. My question is, **according to Catholic teaching, when did this practice begin?** I can find many resources from Catholic sources arguing that it ancient Christians prayed to the saints, pushing the beginning back at least to the late 1st or early 2nd century. How much older they believe "at least" means is not clear. For instance, this article at Catholic Answers has a lengthy collection of quotes from the Fathers, the earliest of which cited is Shephard of Hermas. However, it doesn't say when this practice actually began. They give a Biblical argument for its legitimacy, but nowhere claim that any of the Biblical figures *actually did* pray to deceased saints in heaven. So, I can think of several possibilities for the origin that are consistent with that: * It was first practiced by the early church shortly after the Apostles. * It was first practiced by the Apostles after the ascension of Christ, as an inference from his teachings and revelation from the Holy Spirit. * It was explicitly affirmed by Jesus to the Apostles while he was on the earth. * It was already practiced prior to the Incarnation. The last of these is the most interesting. If it's a pre-Incarnation practice, how far back does it go? Might Noah have prayed to Seth, for instance? Or is it an intertestamental development? Or somewhere in between? *Please note I am **not** asking about any of the following:* 1. Critical perspectives on the origin of prayers to saints. (I want a Catholic perspective.) 2. The idea that the saints in heaven pray for people still on Earth. (That's something Protestants generally accept; the point of difference is whether *we* should invoke *them*, not whether they're praying for us.) 3. The theological foundations of the intercession of the saints. (I want to know when it began to *actually be practiced by the Church,* not when it could have been theoretically valid.) 4. Anything related to prayers to angels. (I'm specifically asking about prayer to human beings in heaven.) 5. Prayers on behalf of the deceased, such as 2nd Maccabees 12:42-46. (There's a significant difference between praying *to* and praying *for* the deceased—in the former case the living are communicating directly with the dead while in the latter they are not.)

[*Mater Populi fidelis* - Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation (4 November 2025)](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html#_Toc201667039) This publication addresses the problem of excessive and inappropriate "Marian devotion". > … there are some **Marian reflection groups**, publications, new devotions, and even requests for Marian dogmas that do not share the same characteristics as popular devotion. > Rather, they ultimately propose a **particular dogmatic development** and express themselves intensely through social media, often **sowing confusion** among ordinary members of the faithful. > Sometimes these initiatives even **involve reinterpretations of expressions** that were used in the past with a variety of meanings. > This document considers such proposals to indicate how some respond to a genuine Marian devotion inspired by the Gospel, and how others **should be avoided since they do not foster a proper contemplation of the harmony of the Christian message as a whole**. Misuse of the titles "Co-redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" is specifically addressed: > *Co-redemptrix* > > 18. Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning. > Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. > **The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons.** … > > 19. In the Feria IV meeting on 21 February 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the request from the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici to define a dogma declaring Mary as the **“Co-redemptrix”** or **“Mediatrix of All Graces”** was acceptable. > In his personal votum, he replied: “**Negative.** > The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. > A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. > However, **it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.**” > Later, in 2002, he publicly voiced his opinion against the use of the title: “**the formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings…** > Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. > **The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.**” > While Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny that there may have been good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title, he maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way.” > > 21. On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that **Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. > She never presented herself as a co-Savior. > No, a disciple.”** > Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, > “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… > **She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no.** > There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” > **Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.”** > For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” > While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), **neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions**. > > 22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, **it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation**. > This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and **can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith**, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). > When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, **it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful**. > In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for **it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ** — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. > Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5). > *Mediatrix* > > 24. **The biblical statement about Christ’s exclusive mediation is conclusive.** > Christ is the only Mediator, “for there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5-6). > The Church has clarified this unique place of Christ in light of the fact that he is the eternal and infinite Son of God, hypostatically united with the humanity he assumed. > This is exclusive to Christ’s humanity, and the consequences that derive from it can only be properly applied to him. > In this precise sense, the Incarnate Word’s role is exclusive and unique. > Given this clarity in the revealed Word of God, special prudence is required when applying the term “Mediatrix” to Mary. > In response to a tendency to broaden the scope of Mary’s cooperation through this title, it is helpful to specify the range of its value as well as its limits. > > 27. The Second Vatican Council’s terminology regarding **mediation primarily refers to Christ; it sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner**. > In fact, the Council preferred to use a different terminology for her: one centered on cooperation or maternal assistance. > The Council’s teaching clearly formulates the perspective of Mary’s maternal intercession, using expressions such as “manifold intercession” and “maternal help.” > These two aspects together define the specific nature of Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s action through the Spirit. > Strictly speaking, **we cannot talk of any other mediation in grace apart from that of the incarnate Son of God**. > Therefore, we must always recall, and never obscure, the Christian conviction that “must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church’s faith” regarding “the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Savior, who through the event of his incarnation, death, and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfillment, and which has in him its fullness and center.” Given these clear statements about the inappropriate use of these titles (and condemnation of other aspects of their faith) what do Marian-centered groups see as their future? - Reducing their use of these titles and their extreme devotion to Mary to conform with Church doctrine and practice? - Separating from the Mother Church? - Being excommunicated? - Something else?

Prior to the changes to the General Roman Calendar in 1969, Catholics of the Roman Rite celebrated two Feasts of the Chair of St. Peter . The Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch was celebrated on February 22, and the Feast of the Chair of St Peter at Rome was celebrated on January 18. Since 1970, the Catholic Church only celebrates the Chair of St. Peter at Rome on February 22. The Archdiocese of Malta celebrates the Shipwreck of St Paul on February 10. St Paul was shipwrecked at Malta around 60 AD. Since St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles established his first see at Antioch (Antakya, Turkey) , my question is this: Do the Catholic faithful of Turkey celebrate the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter at Antioch in accordance with the general celebration, or according to a local custom? If they do, what is the day of celebration?

The Catholic Archdiocese of Malta celebrates the Feast of the Shipwreck of St Paul on February 10 each year. I would like to know if the domestic church has any traditional ways of celebrating this feast within the family at Malta?