There's a Christian podcast on YouTube named [*A Stronger Faith*](https://www.youtube.com/@AStrongerFaith/) , which also has a [website](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/) . The podcast focuses on interviewing Christians about their spiritual experiences, conversion experiences, their testimonies, and so on. The host is [Stacy McCants](https://www.astrongerfaith.org/about) . My question is motivated by Stacy's reference to John 17:3 in this [short video](https://www.youtube.com/shorts/5Ctpqezp0Nk?feature=share) : > You can experience God, so whatever doubts you might have in your mind of "am I just believing something that I've been taught because just in case there really is a hell I don't wanna go there" or have an encounter and experience him. You experienced God. People kind of get in our comments sometimes and talk about "don't be trying to go for the emotional experiences." I think God wants us to experience him. I think a lie of the enemy is that we should not seek experiences with God. That it should just be from an intellectual "just get the book, believe what the book says" perspective. And I can't read what Jesus said in John 17:3 and then say he doesn't want us experiencing him. He says "this is eternal life, that they know you, the one true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." Not that they know *about* you, and *about* Jesus. He says that they *know you*, and know his son. You cannot know somebody without experiencing them. Stacy posits that you cannot know someone without experiencing them. If we apply this to God, then John 17:3 would implicitly suggest that eternal life involves knowing God and Jesus, which, by his logic, means we ought to experience God and Jesus. Interestingly, Stacy McCants's podcast *A Stronger Faith* largely revolves around spiritual or supernatural experiences shared by the Christians he interviews. I suspect Stacy is a charismatic Christian, which might suggest a charismatic bias in his interpretation of John 17:3. **What are the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church's interpretations of John 17:3? Is knowing God and Jesus typically understood as involving experiences, and if so, what kinds of experiences are usually understood to be implied?** **Are there significant differences and/or similarities between both churches as to how they interpret John 17:3?**

Approaching this from a Catholic perspective, what are good signs that God is calling you to the vocation of priesthood, in other words, what must one look for to know whether you are called to the priesthood?

I have not been able to find an actual pivot point, or event which may be considered the official beginning of the Roman Catholic Church. Some have connected it with Peter, which I believe is totally without evidence, while some connect it with the Advent of the first Leo who was Pope, but what would be the best criteria to decide when Roman Catholicism became an actual doctrinal body?

I encountered an opinion that the Old Covenant is still valid and that Israel is still the Chosen Nation of God. I haven't checked the accuracy of the source, but I read on the Internet that St. John Paul II said that "God has never revoked the Old Covenant". Also, St. Paul wrote in Romans 11 a difficult passage about the Jews, particularly in Romans 11:29 : > "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." (RSV). On the other hand, in my language, during the Liturgy of Good Friday, something like "Jews that used to be Chosen Nation in past" is said. (Some say that's a wrong translation; I didn't check the Latin original). Also, the parable of the vineyard in Matthew 21 says: >"Therefore I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a nation producing the fruits of it." (v. 43). This seems to state that the Church replaced Israel as a Chosen People. So, what is the Catholic solution to this seeming contradiction?

>King Charles and Pope Leo are to become the first British monarch and pontiff to pray together at a church service ***since the Reformation in the 16th Century.*** > >This historic moment will be in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, during next week's state visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla. > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 >A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the world's largest religion."As such, the King and Queen's visit will "strengthen the UK's relationship with this crucial and influential partner", she said. > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 >The King will sit in a purpose-made seat, decorated with the King's coat of arms, which will stay in place for the King's future use ***and his successors.*** > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 Is this a 'reconciliation' or is this, after 500 years, the complete capitulation of a supposed 'Protestant' denomination, overturning the Reformation ?

The Wikipedia’s [*list of Marian apparitions*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marian_apparitions) has a narrative of Marian Apparitions documented so far. In most cases, Blessed Mother Mary appears alone. In the case of the apparitions of AD 1570 and 1587 to children at Velankanni, Tamil Nadu, India, a place then under Portugese Colonial Empire, Mary is believed to have held Infant Jesus in her hands. According to Catholic scholars, is there any special significance to such Marian apparitions where Infant Jesus was present?

In c. A.D. 189, St. Irenaeus wrote: > Since, however, it would be very tedious . . . to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vanity, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings, by indicating that Tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and **universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul**; also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, because the apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere [*Against Heresies* 3:3:2] Why did St. Irenaeus say the Church was founded and organized in Rome by Peter and Paul? I'd understand if he was speaking of the lowercase 'c' church in Rome, but he spoke of "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church," so—correct me if I'm wrong—he was speaking of the entire Church rather than the singular church in Rome. So what does he mean exactly?

In the New Law, is the death penalty for sodomy (or other sins of lust, like fornication or adultery) a proportionate punishment? In other words, do Catholic theologians say legislators are morally permitted to write a law requiring the death penalty for homosexual or other acts of lust? Under the Old Law, Lev 20:13 did proscribe sodomy with capital punishment. cf. this post to the CathInfo thread "What Trump policies show he is pro-abortion or pro-sodomy? "

Will the people, who end up in heaven, gain additional glory for each soul that profits from their writings? For example, St. Augustine wrote many good books. Now he is in heaven. To this very day, people read his books and have spiritual benefits. Does St. Augustine receive additional beatitude in heaven for each soul that profits from his books? I want a Catholic answer.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?

I was looking up some stuff and noticed that multiple sources claim that the Catholics and Orthodox have a different view on the "first sin" or "original sin". - There is this answered question within the exchange. Which is what I've found through research as well. - As the Catechism says, “original sin is called ‘sin’ only in an analogical sense: it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’—a state and not an act” (CCC 404). - The Council of Carthage (418) is considered Ecumenical by the Orthodox Church, and it contained the doctrine of "Original Sin"... so no issue here. - Instead of original sin, which is used in Western Christianity, the Orthodox Church uses the term ancestral sin to describe the effect of Adam’s sin on mankind. We do this to make one key distinction; we didn’t sin in Adam (as the Latin mistranslation of Romans 5:12 implies). Rather we sin because Adam’s sin made us capable of doing so. The Greek word for sin, amartema, refers to an individual act, indicating that Adam and Eve alone assume full responsibility for the sin in the Garden of Eden. The Orthodox Church never speaks of Adam and Eve passing guilt on to their descendants, as did Augustine. Instead, each person bears the guilt of his or her own sins. (Saint John the evangelist orthodox church ) - The OCA website claims the "West" understand the doctrine of Original guilt. It is possible they meant the protestants and not the Catholics, but in my experience the Western Church is usually the catholics. - There is the OrthoCuban website who provides a summary, but perhaps it is just the authors flawed understanding of the words used? ------------- As the two churches appear to be still maintaining that there is a difference between Original Sin and Ancestral/First Sin... what exactly is the difference? Because as far as I can tell, there seems to be no difference. Both the catholics and orthodox churches say we suffer the consequences of the first sin, not the guilt. I think the difference is that the Catholic Church defines sin as a violation, and for the Orthodox sin is the separation from God. Is that the issue?

**Has the Mass ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?** I remember reading some years ago about this possibility in Rome, by some Jesuit scholars, but can not find any sources to affirm that it has been done... As we know, Sanskrit is the sacred language of Hinduism, the language of classical Hindu philosophy, and of historical texts of Buddhism and Jainism. Sanskrit is also considered by many as the oldest language in the world. I believe that this would be a great evangelizing tool in the countries such as India and Tibet (China). Thus my question: **Has the Catholic Mass (in any Rite) ever been translated and said in Sanskrit?**

Charity admits degrees (cf. St. Thomas Aquinas in *On Love and Charity* and *Summa Theologica* II-II q. 24 a. 4 - a. 10 ). Has any theologian explained if it is possible to measure one's degree of charity? If so, how can it be measured?

According to this analysis, choosing the Sola Scriptura approach is the "safest best" Where could this logic fall apart, and what are your counterarguments?

I am currently working on a project devoted to the thoughts of the Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) on various topics. One of the topics is *scruples*. St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance, has this to say about scruples itself: > A conscience is scrupulous when, for a frivolous reason and without rational basis, there is a frequent fear of sin even though in reality there is no sin at all. A scruple is a defective understanding of something. St. Philip Neri seemed to have a fair amount to say on the subject, including > The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples. And he offered the following advice to those pestered by scruples: > If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented. and > When a scrupulous person has once made up his mind that he has not consented to a temptation, he must not reason the matter over again to see whether he has really consented or not, for the same temptations often return by making this sort of reflection. However, when I searched, for example, the various sermons and catechetical instructions of the Curé of Ars, I could find nothing along these lines. In fact, I could find nothing at all in which anything directly regarding *scruples* in the above sense is even mentioned. St. John Vianney, has, however, used the word in a slightly different sense on several occasions; when, for example, he says: > My children, you make a scruple of missing holy Mass, because you commit a great sin in missing it by your own fault ; but you have no scruple in missing an instruction. and also, > He [lukewarm Christian] has few scruples in cutting out, on the least pretext, the Asperges and the prayers before Mass. But, alas, I can find nothing regarding his having addressed *scruples* specifically as a spiritual disease. I have consulted his definitive biography by Trochu, and all I could find in there regarding scruples as a disease, is a reference that Trochu makes in regards to St. Benedict Labre en route to receiving the hospitality of the Vianney household when St. John Vianney was a little boy: > Tortured by scruples, Benoit Labre had just left the Trappist monastery of Sept-Fonds, where he had been a novice under the name of Brother Urban. He had now acquired a certainty that his vocation was to be a wayfarer for the remainder of his life, so he set out for Rome. His first halt was at Paray-le-Monial, where he paid long visits to the chapel of the Apparitions. From Paray he journeyed to Lyons, but rather than enter the city at nightfall he chose to spend the night at Dardilly. On observing a number of poor persons going to the house of Pierre Vianney, he went along with them. QUESTION: Does anyone know if the Curé of Ars had had anything to say about the disease of *scruples* directly, perhaps along the lines of the Liguori and Neri quotes provided above; and if so, what are they or where I may find them? (The sources I have used, for the most part, are in English. Perhaps there is something in the French in which the subject is directly addressed?) Thank you.

I'd say a successful band is one that sticks together for 10 years or so and has one of those TLA or first-name awards or a top-40 hit or is actually played on the radio. I'm not into the music scene, but I noticed a discrepancy when checking out Pandora for Christmas tunes and finding an LDS station, but no specifically Catholic tunes. Has there ever been a successful Catholic group or artist singing music you'd hear on your local Christian rock station? Not just an artist in any genre who happens to be Catholic or an artist who was successful, converted to Catholicism and started appealing to a niche crowd (i.e. John Michael Talbot), but an artist or group like the Newsboys or Toby Mac. --- I think this is an objectively answerable question, there's a wiki page for [Roman Catholic Musicians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_Church_musicians) but it is lacking both John Michael Talbot and The Singing Nun. I edited the question to say, since the Singing Nun since [Sister Smile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singing_Nun) would be an example of a "success" in the music business at least, but I've already got her record and I don't need another.

Greek and Latin are sacred liturgical languages, but has Hebrew ever been used in a Christian liturgy? By liturgy, I mean the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. By Hebrew, I mean ancient Hebrew, the (non-vernacular) liturgical language used in Jesus's time.

The concluding prayer of [Litany of Divine Mercy](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/devotions/litany-to-the-divine-mercy-263) goes like this: >Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us, .... When we say that God's mercy is endless, it implies that we require sufficient capacity to absorb from the boundless ocean of mercy. But then, what is the significance of praying that God may increase his mercy on us? How do Catholic scholars explain the prayer?

I've been going to Latin Mass on and off for a while and noticed that some people have adopted as some sort of meme a habit of bowing when the priest passes by and genuflecting when the processional cross passes by. I am personally, an obstinate stubborn sort of fool who won't adopt any practice, no matter how pious, unless it is explained to me personally. (I never dipped my hand in holy water until I heard a homily about it in my teens.) So, I'd really like to know whether or not this is a good, true and beautiful practice or just some Latin LARPer accretion which I would be best to avoid. Furthermore, if it is a good thing to do for TLM, should I do this during the *Novus Ordo* Mass? Why or why not?

If the Catholic Church acquired ChatGPT, could the chatbot hear confessions? Or does Catholic Doctrine mandate that a human priest must hear all confessions?