**According to Catholicism, if Mary may be considered a priest! What kind of priesthood did she have?** We have a few questions on the priesthood of Mary. They can be seen here and here . But I am more interested in statements concerning the nature of the possibility of Mary’s priesthood as defined by the Church and her accepted theologians and not from random blog sources, especially those with an agenda to promote women priests within the Catholic Church?

Why isn't the *Canticum Trium Puerorum* (a.k.a *Benedicite omnia opera Domini*, from the *Song in the Fiery Furnace* in the book of Daniel 3:57-88 ) in the Roman Breviary strictly scriptural? ||Canticum Trium Puerorum||Dan. 3| |--|--|--|--| |57 | Benedícite, ómnia ópera Dómini, Dómino: * laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula.|57 | Benedícite ómnia ópera Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |58 | Benedícite, Ángeli Dómini, Dómino: * benedícite, cæli, Dómino.|58 | Benedícite ángeli Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |59 | Benedícite, aquæ omnes, quæ super cælos sunt, Dómino: * benedícite, omnes virtútes Dómini, Dómino.|59 | Benedícite cæli Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |60 | Benedícite, sol et luna, Dómino: * benedícite, stellæ cæli, Dómino.|60 | Benedícite aquæ omnes, quæ super cælos sunt, Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |61 | Benedícite, omnis imber et ros, Dómino: * benedícite, omnes spíritus Dei, Dómino.|61 | Benedícite omnes virtútes Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |62 | Benedícite, ignis et æstus, Dómino: * benedícite, frigus et æstus, Dómino.|62 | Benedícite sol et luna Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |63 | Benedícite, rores et pruína, Dómino: * benedícite, gelu et frigus, Dómino.|63 | Benedícite stellæ cæli Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |65 | Benedícite, lux et ténebræ, Dómino: * benedícite, fúlgura et nubes, Dómino.|65 | Benedícite omnes spíritus Dei Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |66 | Benedícat terra Dóminum: * laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula.|66 | Benedícite ignis et æstus Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |67 | Benedícite, montes et colles, Dómino: * benedícite, univérsa germinántia in terra, Dómino.|67 | Benedícite frigus et æstus Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |68 | Benedícite, fontes, Dómino: * benedícite, mária et flúmina, Dómino.|68 | Benedícite rores et pruína Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |69 | Benedícite, cete, et ómnia, quæ movéntur in aquis, Dómino: * benedícite, omnes vólucres cæli, Dómino.|69 | Benedícite gelu et frigus Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |70 | Benedícite, omnes béstiæ et pécora, Dómino: * benedícite, fílii hóminum, Dómino.|70 | Benedícite glácies et nives Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |71 | Benedícat Israël Dóminum: * laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula.|71 | Benedícite noctes et dies Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |72 | Benedícite, sacerdótes Dómini, Dómino: * benedícite, servi Dómini, Dómino.|72 | Benedícite lux et ténebræ Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |73 | Benedícite, spíritus, et ánimæ justórum, Dómino: * benedícite, sancti, et húmiles corde, Dómino.|73 | Benedícite fúlgura et nubes Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |74 | Benedícite, Ananía, Azaría, Mísaël, Dómino: * laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula.|74 | Benedícat terra Dóminum: laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula. |75 | (Fit reverentia:) Benedicámus Patrem et Fílium cum Sancto Spíritu: * laudémus et superexaltémus eum in sǽcula.|75 | Benedícite montes et colles Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |56 | Benedíctus es, Dómine, in firmaménto cæli: * et laudábilis, et gloriósus, et superexaltátus in sǽcula.|76 | Benedícite univérsa germinántia in terra Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||77 | Benedícite fontes Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||78 | Benedícite mária et flúmina Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||79 | Benedícite cete, et ómnia quæ movéntur in aquis Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||80 | Benedícite omnes vólucres cæli Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||81 | Benedícite omnes béstiæ et pécora Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||82 | Benedícite fílii hóminum Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||83 | Benedícat Israël Dóminum: laudet et superexáltet eum in sǽcula. |||84 | Benedícite sacerdótes Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||85 | Benedícite servi Dómini Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||86 | Benedícite spíritus et ánimæ iustórum Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||87 | Benedícite sancti et húmiles corde Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula. |||88 | Benedícite Ananía, Azaría, Mísael Dómino: laudáte et superexaltáte eum in sǽcula: quia éruit nos de inférno, et salvos fecit de manu mortis: et liberávit nos de médio ardéntis flammæ, et de médio ignis éruit nos. |||56 | Benedíctus es in firmaménto cæli: et laudábilis et gloriósus in sǽcula. source: https://github.com/DivinumOfficium/divinum-officium/blob/master/web/www/horas/Help/vulgate.txt#L24915-L24947 vs. https://github.com/DivinumOfficium/divinum-officium/blob/master/web/www/horas/Latin/Psalterium/Psalmorum/Psalm210.txt Especially the non-scriptural, very Trinitarian part: "*Benedicámus Patrem et Fílium cum Sancto Spíritu*"? What is the origin of this?

I'm reading the Apostolic Fathers and found a reference to the book of Tobit from Polycarp. Why do Catholics place the deuterocanon as Sacred Scripture?

I understand that in Catholic teaching, the Virgin Mary is believed to be in heaven, often associated with the doctrine of the Assumption. However, I’m trying to understand the Biblical basis for this belief. In Luke 16:22, Jesus describes the righteous dead being in “Abraham’s bosom.” This seems to suggest a state or place where the faithful awaited something prior to the fullness of redemption. My questions are: - What Scriptural evidence do Catholics use to support the belief that Mary is already in heaven (body and/or soul)? - How is this reconciled with passages like Luke 16:22? I’m especially interested in responses grounded in Scripture, though I understand tradition may also play a role.

In the 4th Dogma of Assumption Mary was assumed "body & soul" into heaven. Scriptures tells us nothing defiled shall enter the Kingdom of God...(Rev21:27) And also Gospel of Luke 24:36-ff narrates and describes the "resurrected body" of Jesus. Jesus Appears to the Disciples >36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” > >37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” > >40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence. > >44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.” My question is, Did Mary experienced or was given by God a "glorified body" while on earth? I am looking for Catholic Church teaching or Church Fathers beliefs on Mary's glorified body that hinted similarity on Jesus resurrected body.

In an answer based on Catholicism (on the relevance of current events to the second coming of Christ) it was stated : >Peter has spoken through Leo XIV and will continue to do so. I had not seen such a statement before. In scripture, it is recorded that Moses and Elijah appeared on the mount of transfiguration and spoke, *but it was only to the Lord that they did so.* And I suggest that it cannot be dogmatically stated that this was not a *symbolic apparition*, rather than a personal appearance. Nor do I think that Saul's apparently seeing the witch of Endor can be *dogmatically stated* as a definite occurrence rather than 'anecdotal evidence' or an hallucination. Sorcery is *demonic* in origin and deceptive in execution, I would also point out. In scripture, it is recorded that Jesus recounts the words of Abraham (from paradise) that 'between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence' indicating that passage *between hades and paradise* cannot occur. (The only reason we are aware of Abraham's words is through *Jesus Christ the Son of God*, not by any other means.) --------------------- Note : I am presuming that the statement does not merely say that the words of Peter *as written in scripture*, being *spoken* by the Pope, are *as though Peter spoke them*. I am presuming that the statement, as delivered in context, is saying that Peter, personally, is speaking through the Pope, in a manner of inspired communication.

Jesus and the apostles had both the Old Testament, and the Jewish tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus or any of the apostles appeal to the Jewish traditions. In fact, it appears to be the opposite by Jesus continuously admonishing the Pharisees and the Apostles. The Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of “breaking the traditions” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus responded with a rebuke: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). The manner in which Jesus and the apostles distinguished between the Scriptures and tradition is an example for the church. Jesus specifically rebukes treating the “commandments of men” as doctrines (Matthew 15:9). How do Catholics justify placing "Holy tradition" up with the Word of the Lord? Even if their traditions do not contradict the Word, Jesus never placed any traditions in such a Holy place as the Word, which is "God breathed.". Using circular reasoning by quoting tradition, whether from Jewish traditions in the Torah or Catholic tradition, is not sufficient to justify this belief.

Assuming the arrow of time as a premise that the past comes before the present, and the present comes before the future, temporarily. Could there have been a time where there was nothing before the origin of the something Christians call their God? Is there a universal explanation between the Christian faiths or is there a difference in protestant and catholic faiths in there explanation of the physical manifestation of the arrow of time and its consequence to God coming from ex Nihilo

Duplicate of [LDS](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/24058/22319) but from Catholic perspective Bible verses: Isaiah 43:10 >Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me. Isaiah 44:6 >'I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me. Isaiah 44:8 >Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none. Isaiah 45:5 >I am Yahweh, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. Isaiah 45:14 >Surely, God is with you, and there is none else, No other God. Isaiah 45:18 >I am Yahweh, and there is none else. Isaiah 45:21 >Is it not I, Yahweh? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Isaiah 46:9 >I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me From what I've been reading Catholic catechisms seem to sometimes align with LDS beliefs (at least first reading). CCC 460 >460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "**For the Son of God became man so that we might become God**." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that **he, made man, might make men gods**." I believe this quotes On the Incarnation, by Athanasius (pg 60) >He, indeed, assumed humanity that **we might become God**. He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality Is immortality the only way man might be gods in Catholic tradition/belief or is there some other meaning/interpretation that I'm missing? There are other footnotes in the CCC but they don't seem to be working, is there another text that expounds on what this is saying?

How do Catholics reconcile the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with what it says in Romans 3:23 about all having sinned and falling short of the glory of God? **Romans 3:23 NIV** > for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God Thanks!

### Background According to Catholic.com , men and women were separated during Mass from ancient times, attested as early as the 300s CE: > The practice [of separate seating for men and women] is ancient. It is explicitly mentioned in the 4th century by St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Augustine. It most likely was inherited and carried over from the same practice of the ancient synagogues. ### Question When did this practice stop? For what reasons did Catholics stop practicing this ancient custom?

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre , founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) , made public his decision to consecrate bishops without a papal mandate in his letter to Pope John Paul II on 2 June 1988 . The consecrations occurred 4 weeks later, on 30 June 1988 , the Feast of Corpus Christi that year. When were the names of the priests to be consecrated bishops* first known to the public? *On "June 13 […] the four candidates appeared together at Ecône"; they were: "the Englishman Richard Williamson [48.3 yrs], rector of the North American seminary; the Spaniard Alfonso de Galarreta [31.4yrs], the District Superior in South America; the young Swiss Bernard Fellay [30.2yrs], the General Bursar, who had spent his youth close to Ecône; and the Frenchman Bernard Tissier de Mallerais [42.7yrs], the Secretary General." —+Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX, *Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography* pt. 4, ch. 19, § IV.

I noticed that Catholics pray to statues of Mary, and pray using Rosary beads. When I ask Catholics why they pray to Mary instead of God they tell me that they just show Mary respect for being a sinless woman. I take issue with both points because Mary was not sinless her entire life, only Jesus was, and the Bible says that prayers are between you and God without any middle man. Also, there is a difference between showing respect and worshipping, and it looks to me more like the latter than the former. The Bible says not to use any prayer tools and a Rosary qualifies as a prayer tool. On top of that it is not mentioned in the Bible so where did the Rosary come from originally? I also disagree with Christianity using Jesus on the cross as their image because God said that he doesnt want any image to represent him. Christians dont worship the cross though so I dont label it as idolatry. How does Catholicism reconcile all of these biblical contradictions? *I am not trying to insult the religion, these are genuine questions with no malicious intent behind them. I apologize in advance if this offends anyone*

I am a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the USA. I ask the following question not to be quarrelsome or to demean the Roman Catholic Church. I only wish to obtain an authoritative answer to the question. This question arose [elsewhere](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/113517/what-is-the-current-teaching-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-regards-to-excommun) in the comments section whether the Roman Catholic Church specifically condemns any particular person to hell. Ken Graham wrote: "For the record, the Church has never declared a person damned, that includes Judas Iscariot." And yet in the Papal Bull [Exsurge Domine](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm) issued by Pope Leo X in 1520 it states: > "Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther.... > > "Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures." This suggests that Pope Leo X condemned Luther to hell. So, if current practice is not to condemn a particular person to hell, when did that practice change and was there an official edict issued that established the new policy?

User Ken Graham quotes the Roman Catholic Catechism in a recent answer: "the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men". Missionary work is often associated with Latter-Day Saints and Jehova's witnesses. I have never in my life seen Catholic missionaries in central Europe. So, how does the Roman Catholic church fulfill this obligation to evangelize all men? Or perhaps more provocative: Where are all the Catholic missionaries?

The Church has the authority over marriage (Council of Trent , sess. 24, can. 4 ), and Canon Law has established the diriment impediment : >Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage. But can, in addition to this, the Church say that the difference in ages between the man and woman marrying must not be more than, for example, 10 years? Have canonists deliberated on the question of marital age disparity? Is there a reason the Church does not (at least currently) have a law prohibiting marriages with large age disparities?

(Welcome God Bless You) I am very sorry for such a long question, and attempting a solution in the question. Please bear with me, first a selection of the oldest creeds before the formal/official Filioque clause: [Links to Earliest Pre- Old Roman Symbol “Proto-Creeds” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.i.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.ii.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.iii.html ] ---------------------------------- Old Roman Symbol / Old Roman Creed - Composed in the early 2nd century? I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, [life everlasting]. Source: https://www.logos.com/grow/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/?msockid=18dbc452ca76677c0084d13bcb516636 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Creed of Aquileia – Date 307-309 AD? Credo in Deo Patre omnipotenti invisibili et impassibili (I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible) Et in Jesu Christo, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro (And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord) Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine (Who was born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary) Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus (Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried) Descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (He descended to hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead) Ascendit in cœlos; sedet ad dexteram Patris; (He ascended to the heavens; he sits at the right hand of the Father) Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; (Thence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead) Et in Spiritu Sancto (And in the Holy Ghost) Sanctam Ecclesiam (The Holy Church) Remissionem peccatorum (The remission of sins) Hujus carnis resurrectionem (The resurrection of this flesh) Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm -------------------------------------------------- Eusebius’ Caesarean Creed pre- 325AD: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, τὸν τῶν ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· Maker of all things visible and invisible; Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, the Word of God, 30 θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God of God, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Light of Light, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, Life of Life, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, the only-begotten Son, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, the first-born of every creature, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον, begotten of God the Father before all ages, δἰ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· by whom also all things were made; τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, who for our salvation was made flesh and made his home among men; καὶ παθόντα, and suffered; καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, and rose on the third day; καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, and ascended to the Father; καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. and will come again in glory, to judge the quick and the dead. [Πιστεύομεν] καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 31 [We believe] also in one Holy Ghost.32 Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε· πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος. We believe that each of these is and exists, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost; even as our Lord, when sending forth his disciples to preach, said: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ First council of Nicaea 325 AD We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm Thank you so much for bearing with me, now for the split between Catholic and Orthodox; So The dominant Eastern expression is: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” This is found in: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, not in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources; a rejection of the filioque? (Tertullian?), Augustine, (later more formulated in Aquinas’s Summa), have a type of filioque, also not found in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources ---------------------------------------------- Perhaps a bias of me – I will give key biblical support for a filioque development: “When the Helper comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father…” — Gospel of John 15:26 Central to Aquinas’ teaching on procession of the Holy Spirit. John 15:26 – Spirit “comes from the Father” but also receives from the Son. John 20:22 Jesus breathes the Spirit upon disciples, illustrating the Spirit’s relational reception from the Son. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19 – References to the Spirit as “Spirit of the Son” underscore Tertullian’s relational view. The Spirit of the Son “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts… — Epistle to the Galatians 4:6 The Spirit of Christ “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” — Epistle to the Romans 8:9 From Pauline texts “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6) or interchangeably as the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). -------------------------------------- Perhaps another bias of mine – Fathers early filioque development: [Would Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus if they read the following disagreed?] Tertullian Ontological Status of the Spirit The Spirit is distinct, yet fully divine; Tertullian rejected any notion of created or inferior status. The Spirit receives divinity from the Father via the Son, sharing fully in co-eternal glory Ambrose of Milan (4th century) In De Spiritu Sancto: The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” In De Trinitate (c. 400–420), Augustine writes: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” ----------------------------------- An additional supplement Maximus the Confessor attempted reconciliation – I'm not sure about the Holy Catholic Churches stand on this. Maximus the Confessor introduces a two-level ontology of procession, Creation-Deification: First level: Causal Level (Ontological Origin) Greek term: (αἰτία / aitia) Ultimate origin God, the Logos, and the eternal logoi Property: personal, hypostatic Only the Father is cause Relationship: Source of all; Logos and logoi originate here Second level: Mediation / Manifestation, being and purpose only by participating in the first-level Logos Mutual implicative identity and distinction—creatures partake in divinity while remaining distinct. How what proceeds is expressed or communicated --- "Maximus’ model is non-hierarchical, avoiding Dionysian verticality, allowing movement across ontological boundaries based on participatory capacities rather than fixed ontological grades." The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and is manifested/given from the Son The Spirit can be from the Son relationally Without being caused by the Son --------------------------------- --------------------------------- God the Father (αἰτία) / Ultimate Cause │ ▼ Logos / Eternal Logoi │ ┌──────────────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Nature Rational Beings │ │ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ Manifestation Level Maximus: Mediation Through Son Aquinas (reinterpreted by Maximus): Participation of Son in spiration [side note: related question by another https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35279/the-difference-between-how-the-holy-spirit-and-son-proceed-from-the-father]

At least since the pontificate of John Paul II, and definitely during the times of Francis, the Church ignores the teaching of many popes including - *Quanta cura * together with *Syllabus Errorum * by Pius IX - *Pascendi Dominici Gregis * by Pius X - *Mortalium animos * by Pius XI and, in fact, acts against the teachings explained therein. Vatican II documents never fully revoked these documents explicitly. The question is if Vatican II did it as a pastoral council (it was a council that was not infallible as confirmed by Paul VI so it couldn't do it anyway). So my question is: is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in a state of contradiction? If something was declared by Pius IX, X, or XI as sinful can it be without being explained as erroneous, ignored and in fact encouraged as John Paul II Assisi-style ecumenism?

So I have visited various churches of various denominations throughout my life. There was always a somewhat a "They are wrong"-mentality towards other churches/denominations on a theological level. Aka. baptism means this for us and for these reasons, we think baptism is not what X, Y says it is. This is still fine because it just means that there are differences and that people agree to disagree. But when dealing with charismatic or people in "similar" denominations I face more and more what I call flat-out hostility towards the catholic church in particular but it also is directed towards traditional churches like the protestants. I faced statements like: - The pope is a false prophet/teacher - Rome/The Vatican is the whore of Babylon (referring to Revelation 17:1-6) - Priests do the forgiving during the confessions - Catholics are not really Christians (or at least the faith of many is empty) - and a lot more than I care to remember As you can see these kinds of statements are more than just differences in theology where you can say you simply disagree but still can love each other. Now chances are that this kind of thing happens in every denomination towards any other one, but anecdotally speaking, I found the attacks from charismatics (or similar) towards the Catholic Church in particular but also other traditional churches are rising and are particularly underhanded. Of course, the Catholic Church is not without criticism and I am not in this church for my own good reasons, but I still respect them and see Catholics as Christians, Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Hence the question(s): - Is that only my own experience or is there more to it? - If this hostility is prevalent and rising, what are the reasons for it? - (Optional since that might blow up the scope): What strategy do you propose to remedy it on an individual level?

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.