Total posts: 168
Posted in:
-->
@whiteflame
@Savant
I will also nominate Whiteflame
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm currently going through a lot. I'm not sure if I'll be able to continue to be on the website.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
A lot of people have a hard time reconciling the fact that the Church does not appoint female priests or bishops.
Created:
Posted in:
INTRODUCTION.
A warm thanks to all those who've taken the time out of their day to read today's post. I'm happy to see you all here and I hope you have enjoyed a blessed week. I always like to start by explaining what these Sunday (or Saturday) posts are all about. Every weekend, I publish a reflection on a topic related to Catholic teaching. Sometimes, I respond directly to questions from the community, so feel free to ask anything in the comments (I may address it in the following week's discussion).
Before we begin, I want to emphasize that these posts are not intended for debate, but for exploration and clarity. Many aspects of Church teaching are misunderstood, and my goal is to present them as faithfully as possible. If any part of this explanation remains unclear, please feel free to tag me in the comments—I’ll do my best to respond. I am only human and may occasionally err in my explanations, so I ask you to view any mistake as my own imperfection rather than a failing in the Church’s teachings. As we seek truth with an open heart, let us remember the wisdom of St. Augustine: "We love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us."
TOPIC.
Today, I will address a challenging issue that has sparked considerable discussion: the Catholic Church’s teaching on why women cannot be ordained as priests. I will explore the theological and scriptural foundations for this teaching along with its place in Sacred Tradition.
MAIN BODY.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) clearly states that “only a baptized man validly receives sacred ordination.” (CCC 1577) This teaching is not a reflection of a cultural bias but a matter of fidelity to Christ’s example. In the mystery of the priesthood, the ordained priest acts “in persona Christi”—in the very person of Christ—who, in His incarnate nature, was male. This is a central element in the Church’s understanding of the sacraments and the role of the priest. Jesus, in His earthly ministry, chose only men as His Apostles. By doing so, He provided a model for the Church’s understanding of the priesthood. The selection of the twelve Apostles was not arbitrary; it was a deliberate act that has been handed down through Sacred Tradition. This historical and theological precedent is seen as foundational for the Church’s practice of reserving the priesthood for men.
Further reinforcing this position is the teaching of the Church’s magisterium, as expressed in Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. In this document, the Church definitively stated that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. This teaching is presented not as a temporary discipline, but as a definitive judgment on the matter of Christ’s intention and the tradition that has been faithfully transmitted through the centuries. Scripture also plays a significant role in this understanding. While the New Testament does not explicitly state that women cannot be priests, the very fact that Jesus chose only male apostles (which pass down their authority through appostolic succession) has been interpreted as an indication of the intended form of the priesthood. The Church sees no development or change in this practice throughout its two-thousand-year history, viewing it as a sign of its fidelity to the example set by Christ.
CONCLUSION.
In light of these enduring truths—from the Catechism, Sacred Scripture, and the consistent witness of Sacred Tradition—it is clear that the Catholic Church’s teaching on the priesthood is rooted in the very example of Christ and the Apostolic Tradition. The reservation of priestly ordination to men is not a product of modern culture but a definitive aspect of the Church’s sacred heritage. I hope I was able to share the Catholic perspective on this topic in a logical and clear manner. If you have any questions or doubts, please raise them in the comments, and I will do my best to respond as swiftly as possible. Remember, this is a matter of faith and doctrine, presented in the light of our commitment to truth as revealed by God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Catholic teaching does not offer a concrete, exhaustive list of “wrong actions” because the morality of any gesture depends on the intention behind it and the context in which it occurs. The key is the intention and context rather than the specific physical gesture, which is why no definitive list can be provided.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Catholic teaching distinguishes between platonic affection and acts intended to arouse sexual desire. Brief, culturally normal gestures (like a short hug, holding hands, a friendly pat, or a light kiss on the cheek/back of the hand) are acceptable when free of lustful intent. However, prolonged or intimate gestures (such as extended cuddling or kissing in traditionally erotic areas like the lips, neck, or tummy) are considered morally disordered if they serve to gratify disordered sexual desire.
Created:
Posted in:
INTRODUCTION.
Welcome to the sixth Sunday School forum post. I usually publish them either on Saturday or Sunday (depending on my availability) so I apologize if I kept anybody waiting. I hope you all have had a wonderful week since I last touched base. I always like to start by explaining what these Sunday posts actually are. Every weekend, I like to publish a response to a Catholic-related topic. Sometimes, I directly answer questions from the community, so feel free to ask anything in the comments (I may respond to it in the following week's discussion).
Before we begin, I want to emphasize that these posts are not meant for debate, but for exploration and clarity. Many misunderstand Catholic teachings, and my goal is to present them as accurately as possible. If anything remains unclear, feel free to tag me in the comments—I’ll do my best to respond. That said, I am only human and may err in my explanations. If I do, I hope you’ll see that as my own imperfection, not a flaw in the Church’s teachings. I encourage you to seek truth with an open heart. St. Augustine wisely noted, "We love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us."
TOPIC.
Today, we will discuss same-sex relationships, a movement that has gained significant traction over the past decades. We will explore what the Church teaches about same-sex relationships and how these teachings have developed.
MAIN BODY.
The Cathechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) unambiguously declares that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (CCC 2357).
Notice, however, that the CCC specifically says homosexual acts are disordered. It does not say that a homosexual orientation (or the attraction to the same gender) is sinful in and of itself. The Catechism makes a clear distinction between a homosexual orientation, which is not sinful in itself, and homosexual acts, which become morally problematic when they are acted upon. Let's look at what the next verse (CCC 2358) says:
The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
This passage reinforces the call for all individuals, regardless of orientation, to live a chaste life while being treated with respect and sensitivity, avoiding any form of unjust discrimination.
Romans 1:24-27:
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Sin came from Adam's God-given gift to choose for himself right and wrong—an ability which led to the fall of man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Read R1, go to the section "PROOF FROM TRADITION" and read the second paragraph.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The passage in Leviticus 21:16–23, which restricts priests with physical defects from offering sacrifices, is often misunderstood. In the Old Testament, these ritual purity laws governed the Israelite priesthood and the Temple liturgy—they were never meant to dictate someone’s salvation or prevent a person with disabilities from knowing or loving God. Rather, in the context of ancient Israel, the Temple sacrifices were a sacred ritual foreshadowing Christ’s perfect sacrifice; the requirement of a physically “unblemished” priest symbolized the ritual purity associated with these offerings.
Under the New Covenant, ushered in by Jesus Christ, all people—regardless of physical ability—have direct access to God (cf. Galatians 3:28). Christ specifically reached out to the marginalized, including those with disabilities, healing many to illustrate God’s boundless mercy. Catholic teaching affirms that each human person, from conception onward, is created in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:27), endowed with an inherent dignity that cannot be erased by any physical condition or limitation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Your remarks misrepresent the truth of the Incarnation and the Church’s teaching. According to Catholic doctrine, Mary freely and joyfully accepted God’s call, conceiving Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit—not through any act of violence or rape. The crucifixion was not a tragic mistake or the result of a “forced” choice; it was the divinely ordained, redemptive sacrifice through which Jesus willingly took upon Himself the sins of the world. This mystery of salvation, grounded in Scripture and affirmed by Tradition, transcends any modern political analogy or misunderstanding.
Again, how does this relate to the post's topic, and what's up with the asterisks and hashtags?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
On Sin
Yes, Catholics firmly believe that all human beings are sinners. We inherit original sin—as outlined in Romans 5:12-21—and add our personal sins, which distance us from God. This reality underlines our desperate need for a savior, a need perfectly met by Jesus Christ.
On God's Curse in Genesis
God’s words to Adam in Genesis (3:17-19) reveal the severe consequences of disobedience. The curse—bringing painful toil, thorns, and thistles—demonstrates the profound impact of sin on creation. It is not merely punitive but sets the stage for God’s redemptive plan.
On the Crucifixion of the Son of God
Absolutely, Catholics affirm that Jesus, the Son of God, was crucified. His death at Golgotha—a historical event confirmed by Scripture—was the ultimate sacrifice, redeeming humanity from sin and opening the way to eternal salvation.
That being said, I don't see how any of that is relevent to abortion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I've addressed most of those objections. Give R1 a read.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Even when irreversible deformities are detected, Catholic teaching maintains that every human life is sacred from the moment of conception. The presence of such conditions does not diminish the inherent dignity or the right to life of the unborn, who is made in the image of God.
Created:
Posted in:
For more imformation on the topic and a more scriptural/historical defense of the papacy, see the debate I'm currently participating in: https://www.debateart.com/debates/5931-the-bible-and-early-church-tradition-affirm-the-papacy-as-a-divinely-established-office
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No, semen itself is not considered a person. While it is essential for procreation, the protection of human life in Catholic teaching begins at conception—when the sperm fertilizes the egg and a new, distinct human life is formed.
Created:
Posted in:
INTRODUCTION.
A warm thanks to all those who've taken the time out of their day to give today's post a read. I'm happy to see you all here and I hope you all have had a wonderful week. I always like to start by explaining what these Sunday (or Saturday) posts actually are. Every weekend, I like to publish a response to a Catholic-related topic. Sometimes, I directly answer questions from the community, so feel free to ask anything in the comments (I may respond to it in the following week's discussion).
Before we begin, I want to emphasize that these posts are not meant for debate, but for exploration and clarity. Many misunderstand Catholic teachings, and my goal is to present them as accurately as possible. If anything remains unclear, feel free to tag me in the comments—I’ll do my best to respond. That said, I am only human and may err in my explanations. If I do, I hope you’ll see that as my own imperfection, not a flaw in the Church’s teachings. I encourage you to seek truth with an open heart. St. Augustine wisely noted, "We love the truth when it enlightens us, but we hate it when it convicts us."
TOPIC.
Today, I will address a highly controversial issue which many are passionate about: abortion. I'll be exploring and sharing the Catholic perspective along with its Biblical basis.
MAIN BODY.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) unambiguously declares that every human life must be respected and protected from the very moment of conception. As stated in CCC 2270-2271:
Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person — among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life. Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.
This authoritative teaching leaves no room for ambiguity. The Church’s stance, rooted in both Sacred Tradition and divine revelation, categorically condemns any deliberate termination of pregnancy as a grave moral evil. To act otherwise is not merely a matter of opinion—it is a direct violation of the immutable moral law ordained by God.
Psalm 139:13-16 further reinforces this truth by illustrating God’s intimate role in our creation:
For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; that I know very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth. Your eyes beheld my unformed substance. In your book were written all the days that were formed for me, when none of them as yet existed.
This passage irrefutably demonstrates that God personally and purposefully forms each human being even before birth. The intricate care with which our very being is fashioned affirms that every life is sacred and designed with intention. To deny this divine craftsmanship is to arrogate to ourselves the prerogative of God, thereby undermining His sovereign plan.
Further strengthening this position is the prophetic witness of Jeremiah 1:5:
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.
Here, God’s foreknowledge and consecration of Jeremiah before his birth underscore a fundamental truth: every human life is predestined for a unique and divinely ordained purpose. This scriptural evidence decisively confirms that life begins at conception and is endowed with inherent dignity from that very moment.
Conclusion
In light of these incontrovertible teachings—both from the Catechism and Sacred Scripture—it is clear that human life is sacred from conception. The Church’s unyielding stance against abortion is not a mere doctrinal preference but a reflection of eternal truths revealed by God. Any attempt to repudiate or reinterpret these truths is not only logically untenable but also a direct affront to the divine order. I hope I was able to share the Catholic interpretation of these verses in a logical and clear manner. That being said, if there are any questions or doubts left, please raise them in the comments and I will try to respond to them as swiftly as I can. Of course, this is a religious position—it is not a defense from science.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Under a 2007 decree from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, both the bishop who attempts to ordain a woman and the woman who seeks ordination incur latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication. That ruling applies regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. In other words, if these “Roman Catholic Womenpriests” or individuals identifying as non-binary were once in full communion with the Catholic Church and then attempted ordination against Church teaching, they would be considered—by their own action—to have excommunicated themselves. There’s generally no need for a separate, formal decree in each individual case; the penalty is automatic.
The recent Synod on Synodality has not altered or rescinded any teaching on the priesthood. While it has welcomed wide-ranging dialogue on women’s roles in the Church, pastoral care for LGBTQ+ Catholics, and other matters, the official stance on Holy Orders remains unchanged: the Catholic Church holds that it has no authority to ordain women, and that this teaching is definitive. Consequently, these ordinations—no matter how they are described—are not recognized by Rome, and those who participate are viewed as separated from the Church’s sacramental ministry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
First, from the official Roman Catholic perspective, any woman or non-binary individual claiming ordination as a Catholic priest is not recognized as a valid priest. The Vatican understands Holy Orders to be reserved exclusively to men, and numerous official statements (most notably *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* by Pope John Paul II) reaffirm that the Church does not consider itself authorized to change this tradition. Therefore, organizations like “Roman Catholic Womenpriests” or individuals who identify as Catholic priests outside the Church’s established norms are not regarded by Rome as holding legitimate priestly ministry—even if they invoke apostolic succession or use a Catholic-style liturgy.
Second, it’s true that groups in the “Independent Catholic” or “Old Catholic” sphere sometimes use Catholic elements, including sacramental rites, while ordaining women or non-binary individuals. However, being in full communion with the pope is integral to recognized ministry in the Roman Catholic Church. A break with that communion—such as ordaining women against Church teaching—means official Rome considers the ordinations invalid, and those involved are effectively outside the visible structure of the Catholic Church. Hence, references to “Father/Mother” or “non-binary priest” in this context do not alter the Vatican’s stance. In short, while these individuals may refer to themselves as Catholic clergy, the Holy See does not acknowledge them as such.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Marriage
No problem. It's my pleasure! The one piece of advice I'd give is that you never know the depths of someone no matter how they may appear. A relationship that seems valid and fruitful may be invalid and destructive.
Schism
Paul’s Letter to the Romans wasn’t written to endorse or clarify papal authority—it’s a theological treatise addressing salvation, faith, and unity among Jewish and Gentile believers. The fact that he doesn’t explicitly cite Peter’s role in Rome isn’t surprising; it simply wasn’t the epistle’s main aim. Early Christian writings often focus on immediate doctrinal or pastoral concerns rather than systematically outlining every aspect of ecclesial structure. Paul’s and James’s challenges to Peter (Galatians 2:11–14 and Acts 15) don’t negate the Catholic understanding of Petrine primacy. Catholics distinguish between Peter’s personal conduct—which, like any pope or bishop, could be open to fraternal correction—and his unique authority when definitively teaching or guiding the Church. During the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), Peter does in fact speak decisively about including Gentiles without imposing full Mosaic law, and James, the local overseer in Jerusalem, effectively ratifies Peter’s conclusion for the assembly. From a Catholic perspective, this episode illustrates that Peter, while able to err personally, was still the leading voice in resolving doctrinal disputes.
While it’s possible to read “rock” (Matthew 16:18) in various ways (e.g., the gospel itself or Christ as the ultimate cornerstone), Catholic tradition has long seen Jesus’ direct address—“You are Peter, and on this rock…”—as conferring a special pastoral role on Peter. His subsequent commission to “feed my sheep” (John 21:17) signifies more than private forgiveness; it entrusts him with caring for the entire flock. Thus, even allowing for historical nuance and the humanity of the apostles, Catholics hold that Peter’s office has continued in his successors as a visible sign of unity for the universal Church.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Marriage
In Catholic teaching, any two validly baptized Christians—including Presbyterians—who freely exchange consent are understood to enter a genuine, sacramental marriage, even if their own community doesn’t label marriage a sacrament. The Church does require Catholics to marry according to “canonical form” (in a Catholic ceremony or with official dispensation), so if a Catholic marries outside these norms, that marriage may be deemed invalid until it’s “convalidated” under Church jurisdiction. Regarding annulments, they differ from divorce: a divorce attempts to dissolve a valid bond, whereas an annulment states, after careful investigation, that a fundamental requirement—like free consent or the capacity to undertake marriage—was absent from the very start, meaning the couple never had a valid sacramental marriage in the Church’s eyes, even if they appeared happily wed and raised a family.
Schism
Despite the gradual, centuries-long development of the papacy’s external structures and its articulation in ecclesial law, the Catholic tradition holds that its core reality traces back to Christ’s designation of Peter as the “rock” (Matthew 16:18) and His command to “feed my sheep” (John 21:17). The apostles, while each holding their own authority, remained in communion with Peter, whose unique role is evident not only in the Gospel accounts—where he’s consistently named first—but also in Acts, where he often speaks or acts on behalf of the nascent Church. From this vantage, the papacy, as Peter’s successor in the See of Rome, is understood to be more than a mere organizational convenience: it’s the visible sign of unity in faith and communion for the universal Church. Even though historical circumstances shaped the way the papacy functioned over time, the Catholic conviction is that the essential Petrine office—established by Christ and recognized in the apostolic community—remains genuine and binds the faithful in one visible fellowship.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There are only male priests in Catholicism. On the other hand, other denomations (such as some Protestants) have women priests, for example.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Also, would you explain the position of marriage as a sacrament of the church? If a couple are married outside of the Roman Catholic Church are they truly married? Or would they need to be remarried by the Church if they wished to join the church as members?
The Catholic Church understands marriage both as a natural institution and, for baptized Christians, as a sacrament. When non-Catholic Christians marry each other—following the norms of their own community—Rome usually recognizes that union as a valid (and if both are baptized, a sacramental) marriage, no additional ceremony required. If at least one of the spouses is Catholic and marries outside the Church without official permission, that marriage is not considered valid according to Catholic law. To rectify this, the couple can seek a convalidation—a simple ceremony that validates their vows under Church jurisdiction. It’s not a “new” wedding but a recognition that now the marriage meets the Catholic form.
Also, would you explain why the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated the Orthodox Church in the original split? Why does history from both the Orthodox and the Protestants and even from some Catholic historians suggest it was because the Orthodox refused to accept the authority of the Papacy and his role in introducing "and the Son" to a certain Creed?
The East–West Schism, often dated to 1054, was a complex, centuries-long rift fueled by differences in language, culture, theology, and governance, culminating in mutual excommunications. Key flashpoints included disputes over the Pope’s authority—viewed in the West as a unique Petrine primacy and in the East as an overreach—and the West’s unilateral addition of “and the Son” (Filioque) to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. Though it’s sometimes simplified as Rome excommunicating the Orthodox for rejecting papal claims and the Creed’s alteration, deeper issues—such as differing liturgical customs and broader political pressures—had been straining East–West relations long before the final break.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
There are now transgender, lesbians and non binary ministering in the church. And all against the teaching in the BIBLE!
You're right, but not in the Catholic Church. The Church holds that only men can recieve the laying on of hands (which is necessary in order to become a priest).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
The Catholic Church does not deem non-Catholic Christians’ rejection of the papacy as blasphemy, nor condemn them thereby as faithless. The Church views them as brothers and sisters in Christ who, while confessing the same Redeemer, lack the fullness of communion that Christ willed for His flock. In the eyes of the Church, the papacy—rooted in Christ’s words to Peter (Matthew 16:18)—represents both the center of visible unity and apostolic continuity. Jesus desires that all be one (John 17:21), so the Church prays and labors that every Christian might one day share this unity in its entirety. Though disagreement remains about the role of the Pope, it is not adjudged a deliberate offense against God’s honor but an imperfect apprehension of the gift Christ entrusted to Peter and his successors. We trust that in God’s providential plan, sincere hearts moved by grace will together converge on the truth, fulfilling our Lord’s prayer that all may be one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ranacat
The Catholic Church’s teaching on original sin does not oppose Christ’s infinite atonement—it reveals why we so desperately need it. As St. Paul explains (Romans 5:12–21), sin entered the world through one man, and all humanity inherited a wounded nature, lacking the communion with God once enjoyed by our first parents. The Catechism (CCC 404–409) clarifies that this “original sin” is not our personal guilt but the transmission of a fallen condition. Christ’s redemptive sacrifice, offered once for all, overcomes this estrangement: by His Cross and Resurrection, He makes possible our restoration to grace, ordinarily conferred through Baptism. There is no contradiction. Does that clarify things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe you’re referring to Papal Infallibility, which applies solely to doctrinal statements on faith and morals. The Catholic Church actually hasn’t contradicted its teachings over the past 1,000 years. However, much like infallibility, the understanding of other beliefs has naturally developed over time. This reflects a common pattern in the Church’s teachings: later clarifications explicitly articulate what was previously implicit. In essence, the Church’s teachings have developed consistently, without altering or contradicting earlier doctrines (which, if you ask me, is a miracle in and of itself).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Why do you believe Peter would have been the last person Jesus would have wanted to entrust with the “keys?”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Shila
I'm surprise you guys don't have anything to say this week.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
If Sedevacantism is true, where is the Church Christ founded? Eventually, if there hasn't been a pope since 1958, and all the Episcopal consecrations since then are invalid—which, if that's the case, we are almost there—we will eventually get to a point where there are no validly consecrated bishops anymore (which means there are no successors of the apostles). Furthermore, we would eventually reach a point, perhaps in another 50 years, where no priests are ordained by bishops who were validly consecrated. If that's the case, where is the Church?
Created:
Posted in:
INTRODUCTION.
Today marks one month since we started the Sunday School posts; time sure flies. Looking back at previous Sunday Schools, a question by @Earth caught my eye. In today's post, I will be addressing this question.
Again, however, I must stress that these posts aren't about debating or arguing, but about sharing different perspectives. Most bear misconceptions about the Catholic Church, so I hope to clarify Catholic positions and share her correct teachings with others. If any confusion lingers after reading the following, mention me in the comments and I will try my best to answer. That being said, I am not perfect by any means and do not know everything there is to know about the faith. I may very well make a mistake in answering these post-like questions, or when addressing comments. I hope you will not take my personal imperfection to be an accurate representation of the Catholic faith. I urge all to conduct research themselves, for as C.S. Lewis once said, "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance."
QUESTION.
I was asked a very central question regarding Catholicism: "What are your thoughts on the papacy?" As some can infer—being a Catholic—I hold the papacy to be a divinely appointed institution by Jesus Christ, and the pope (from the Latin word papa, meaning father) to be the vicar of Christ. But what is the pope?
ANSWER.
Catholics (such as myself) believe the pope is the Bishop of Rome and the visible head of the Catholic Church, tasked with safeguarding faith and morals, unifying the faithful, and leading the Church in its mission to spread the Gospel. Why? In Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus declares, "you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (hell) will not prevail against it." giving him the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and the authority to bind and loose. This act signifies Christ entrusting Peter with a unique leadership role, rooted in spiritual authority and service.
Apostolic succession is the unbroken transmission of spiritual authority from the apostles, through their successors—the bishops, and particularly the Pope as the successor of St. Peter—down to the present day. Catholics believe it is true because it is rooted in both Scripture and Tradition. In the New Testament, Jesus commissions the apostles to continue His mission, saying, "as the Father has sent me, so I send you" (John 20:21) and granting them the authority to teach, sanctify, and govern in His name (Matthew 28:19-20). This authority was not meant to die with the apostles but to be passed on, as seen when the apostles appoint successors like Matthias (Acts 1:20-26) and ordain leaders through the laying on of hands (2 Timothy 1:6; Titus 1:5). Early Church Fathers, such as St. Irenaeus in the 2nd century, explicitly affirm apostolic succession as the means by which the true faith is preserved, identifying the bishops as custodians of apostolic teaching. Apostolic succession directly connects the Pope to St. Peter, ensuring that the unique authority Christ gave to Peter continues through an unbroken line.
History offers inspiring examples of the papacy’s impact. Pope Pius XII, who saved more Jews during the Holocaust than Schindler, penned the profound encyclical Humani Generis and provided life-saving aid to millions of refugees during and after World War II. Pope St. John Paul II, instrumental in the fall of communism, survived an assassination attempt, forgave his assailant, and gifted the Church the transformative Theology of the Body. While there have been “bad popes” in the Church’s history, these are two of my favorite examples of how the papacy can exemplify extraordinary courage, leadership, and fidelity to Christ.
NOTE.
The sins or failures of individual popes do not falsify the papacy because the office itself, established by Christ, is grounded in divine authority, not human perfection. Jesus chose Peter, a flawed man who denied Him three times, to be the rock upon which He built His Church (Matthew 16:18-19), demonstrating that God works through imperfect individuals to accomplish His will. The Church teaches that the pope’s charism of infallibility applies only to official teachings on faith and morals, not to personal holiness or decisions (though that is another topic altogether). The persistence and unity of the papacy across centuries, despite the failings of some popes, affirm Christ’s promise that "the gates of Hades (hell) will not prevail against it"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Jesus’s cry on the cross—“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46)—does more than express anguish; it recalls the opening line of Psalm 22, which moves from lament to hope in God’s ultimate victory. In quoting this psalm, Jesus shows a profound solidarity with human suffering, illustrating that even in dire desolation, one can still turn to the Father. Jesus’s words invite reflection on God’s fidelity in the midst of trials. By invoking a psalm that ends in God’s deliverance, Christ embodies a motivational ideal: faith persisting through apparent abandonment, culminating in the triumph of divine love. This “memorial” on the cross therefore conveys both Jesus’s full participation in human suffering and His unwavering trust in the Father’s redemptive plan.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
From the Catholic Church’s perspective, James 1:6, Matthew 21:21, and Mark 11:23 use emphatic language to stress ideal trust in God rather than forbid every passing doubt. Tradition holds that fleeting doubts don’t invalidate faith. These verses urge unwavering commitment of the will to God. In Catholic teaching, even saints like Thomas had questions, yet persevered and deepened in faith. Reconcile these verses with the broader biblical narrative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I responded on post #11. Am I missing something? I could totally be; I'm not perfect after all. If you don't mind, I would love to hear your insights.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Ancient writers often employed stark contrasts (“light vs. darkness,” “faith vs. doubt”) to illustrate spiritual truths in a memorable way. The strong wording may serve as a motivational “ideal,” rather than a literal edict that punishes every flicker of uncertainty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
One has to ask why even put them in such a way when they don't mean what they say?
Because rhetorical style in Scripture frequently uses heightened language to drive home a point.
Mother Teresa
Catholic teaching generally understands that even saints can (and often do) experience deep spiritual dryness or questioning. You point out that many have criticized how her missions handled medical care for the dying, especially regarding adequate pain relief or basic interventions. It’s also been alleged she referred to some of the suffering as “God’s contraception,” aligning with her stance against birth control. While multiple sources report these controversies, others argue that her facilities were meant primarily as places of refuge and dignity for the dying—though critics maintain that, in modern terms, this care fell short. The Church looked at Mother Teresa’s overall life: Her commitment to serve the most marginalized, the global network of charities she inspired and led, the personal sacrifices she made—living in poverty herself, working among the dying of Kolkata.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You've really gotten me to use my brain today. Thank you for the challenge! When we read biblical passages like James 1:6 (“…the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea…”), Matthew 21:21, or Mark 11:23, it can seem like Scripture demands an unshakeable, doubt-free faith. Yet, as many Christians and even saints throughout history have found, faith inevitably gets tested by adversity, pain, and the mystery of evil in the world. Mother Teresa—someone widely admired for her sanctity—wrote candidly of her many years spent in a spiritual “darkness.” She confessed that roses of consolation were rare on her path, replaced instead by an abiding sense of desolation and temptation to doubt. Bl. John Henry Newman helps clarify this apparent contradiction by distinguishing “difficulties” from “doubts.” A difficulty, he notes, does not necessarily equal a willful rejection of belief. Instead, it’s a confrontation with questions, the impetus to look more deeply into what we claim to believe. When James 1:6 or Matthew 14:31 exhort believers to “not doubt,” they are describing the steadfast choice to trust God—even when the mind is clouded by perplexity or the heart by sorrow. This is where biblical “belief without doubt” turns out to be less about banishing every question from one’s mind and more about refusing to abandon faith in the face of challenges. Like Frodo in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, who accepts the burden of the Ring despite not knowing the way, a Christian in the throes of hardship can declare, “I will walk forward by faith, though I do not see all the answers.”
In this sense, doubt (in the form of temptation or difficulty) can actually refine and deepen faith. It forces us, in the spirit of Socrates, to examine what we believe and why. Just as Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) observed, both believers and nonbelievers harbor elements of doubt and belief. It is part of our human condition to question, to fear being wrong, and even to catch a glimpse of “Perhaps I am mistaken.” Yet, when that moment of uncertainty leads us to seek understanding, find clarity, or persevere in faith (like Mother Teresa did when she offered her darkness to Jesus) it can strengthen our convictions rather than destroy them. Ultimately, Scripture’s call to believe without doubting is about choosing, again and again, to remain faithful to God in heart and will, even if the intellect wrestles with honest questions along the way.
In this sense, doubt (in the form of temptation or difficulty) can actually refine and deepen faith. It forces us, in the spirit of Socrates, to examine what we believe and why. Just as Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) observed, both believers and nonbelievers harbor elements of doubt and belief. It is part of our human condition to question, to fear being wrong, and even to catch a glimpse of “Perhaps I am mistaken.” Yet, when that moment of uncertainty leads us to seek understanding, find clarity, or persevere in faith (like Mother Teresa did when she offered her darkness to Jesus) it can strengthen our convictions rather than destroy them. Ultimately, Scripture’s call to believe without doubting is about choosing, again and again, to remain faithful to God in heart and will, even if the intellect wrestles with honest questions along the way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say. Are you to say the Scriptures are unreliable? As in, humans have changed what was initially written?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes, it had completely slipped my mind. I appreciate your patience and your reminder! Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"Believe without any doubt"
Those verses raise a thought-provoking point, and I appreciate your attention to detail with Scripture. At first glance, verses like James 1:6 (“But ask in faith, never doubting...”), Matthew 21:21, and Mark 11:23 might seem to demand belief that excludes all doubt. However, these passages are better understood in the context of trust rather than the complete absence of questions or uncertainty. The biblical call to "believe without doubt" is about the quality of one’s reliance on God, not the elimination of intellectual or emotional struggles. In fact, figures like Job, David, and even Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane show us that God is not threatened by honest doubt or questioning.
And you believe all those words, do you?
Yes! And if you had any questions, I'd love to answer them. Today's post can be more "debate-like," so long as we keep things cordial.
Created:
Posted in:
LET'S CUT TO THE CHASE THIS TIME.
Don’t you know… that belief is a doubt? It sounds paradoxical, yet it reminds us that to believe—whether in a deity, a cause, or even the reliability of science—requires an element of uncertainty. We embrace convictions based on evidence, experience, and intuition, but we cannot confirm every dimension of reality with absolute certainty. Even a commitment to not believing in a higher power rests on weighing available evidence and concluding that a deity is unlikely. This subtle admission of “I could be wrong” is what keeps us humble, curious, and open to growth.
Yet, uncertainty need not terrify us; in fact, it can unite us. Whether you define yourself as atheist, agnostic, or a believer, there’s a universal desire to seek the truth, understand our place in the world, and live meaningfully. It is through questioning—acknowledging the gap between what we know and what remains unknown—that we find common ground. Rather than set us apart, doubt can be the starting point for genuine conversations, encouraging cooperation, compassion, and a shared search for insight. In that search, we learn not only facts about the cosmos but also deeper truths about compassion, empathy, and the power of human connection. Faith communities sometimes speak of “faith seeking understanding,” but this concept isn’t exclusive to religion. In every sphere—science, philosophy, or daily life—our convictions emerge from a process of testing ideas, encountering challenges, and refining what we hold to be true. In that sense, the essence of belief, grounded in questioning, is something we all share. May this acknowledgment inspire us to reach across divides, learn from each other’s perspectives, and channel our uncertainties into building a more understanding, compassionate society.
Following from this guidance, I would like to dedicate today's post solely to answering questions. To all comfortable opening up, feel free to ask any questions about the Catholic faith. Though I may not be perfect, I will definitely try to answer your questions genuinely and wholeheartedly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
From a Catholic apologetic standpoint, the passage in Exodus 21:22-25 is frequently misread as assigning lesser value to an unborn child. However, close attention to the Hebrew text and its nuances reveals an ambiguity in translation—especially in older versions that speak of a “miscarriage” rather than a “premature birth.” In the original language, the key phrase is that the child “comes out,” not necessarily that the child dies. If there is no further harm (i.e., both mother and child remain unharmed), the penalty is a fine for endangering them. Should there be additional injury—either to the mother or to the child—more severe penalties apply, up to “life for life.” Many biblical scholars and Catholic commentators thus conclude that the law actually reinforces the seriousness of harming both pregnant mother and child, rather than discounting the unborn as mere property.
Moreover, the broader witness of Scripture and Church tradition consistently affirms the inherent dignity of every human life, including the unborn. Passages like Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”) and Psalm 139:13 (“You knit me together in my mother’s womb”) reflect the biblical view of the unborn as treasured persons under God’s care. Early Christian writings like the Didache explicitly condemn abortion, and for two millennia the Church has upheld the sanctity of life from conception. Thus, even though the Bible may not reference abortion in the modern clinical sense, Catholic teaching—informed by Scripture, Tradition, and moral reasoning—has always held that the unborn child is fully human and deserving of full protection.
Moreover, the broader witness of Scripture and Church tradition consistently affirms the inherent dignity of every human life, including the unborn. Passages like Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you”) and Psalm 139:13 (“You knit me together in my mother’s womb”) reflect the biblical view of the unborn as treasured persons under God’s care. Early Christian writings like the Didache explicitly condemn abortion, and for two millennia the Church has upheld the sanctity of life from conception. Thus, even though the Bible may not reference abortion in the modern clinical sense, Catholic teaching—informed by Scripture, Tradition, and moral reasoning—has always held that the unborn child is fully human and deserving of full protection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Thank you for reminding me! It completely slipped my mind. I'll work on it and post it hopefully today or tomorrow.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Catholic teaching affirms that Adam and Eve indeed had enough knowledge to make a truly free and informed decision. Though the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" symbolized a kind of experiential knowledge God wanted to spare them, it did not mean they were clueless about right and wrong. Created in God's image and endowed with reason, they were already able to discern that obeying God's command was right, and that disobedience would be wrong. Their intellect, untouched by sin at creation, could grasp that God's will should be followed, and His prohibition conveyed the moral boundary they ought not cross. Thus, they did not need to "experience" evil beforehand to understand that rejecting God's command was evil.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
I'm too busy at the moment. Thank you for the offer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Well, Stephen, if you want me to entertain your questions, I'd suggest you phrased them in a way that doesn't seem assertive. I'm not any more obliged to answer an easy question than a hard one. Whether or not I want to answer a question is entirely my choice. You can call that cowardly and disingenuous or you can call it... preference. If you bear such distaste with the way I'm doing things, why not ignore the post?
Created: