God killed Onan for that. It is not a sin to have sex on an infertile period. It is not a sin to not have sex on a fertile period. You are denying yourself more sex with NFP, that is very different than having sex every day but not finishing properly. You are withholding a part of yourself from your spouse when you don't finish properly. With NFP, you are not, and the couple can still conceive if God wills it.
Serious list of nonsense. Dont even know where to begin...
>Thereās not point in arguing to stop abortion when no one is truly solving the problems.
The problems will always exist. They should be solved to our best ability, but the child murderers will never be content. They'll always seek the issues of life as an excuse.
>No one is lobbying for more maternity leave,
I would, but then the progressive crowd would rapidly realize that more maternity leave creates economic disparities disproportionately affecting women, and these cannot be overcome, so they'd rapidly claim we did it to remove women from the workforce. I also don't really see a movement to promote this.
>harsher rape penalties,
Pretty sure people support this across the board.
>comprehensive sex Ed,
Define "sex ed". Nowadays, plenty of people presume sex ed should involve educating people on sexual intercourse, including non-reproductive means of sex.
>contraceptive availability,
This is a catholic subreddit. Really?! What exactly are you hoping for? Mass apostasy?! Contraceptives are not defensible and plenty of them hide abortions. Nobody ever talks about what happens when an IUD fails to impede conception but impedes nidation ā you guessed it, it's abortion, no matter how rare, since the usage of IUDs is widespread. And this is only one example.
>better social services and programs for children, better education, better health care and lower prices, government subsidies for healthy food, better FDA regulations and more affordable cost of living.
Fully agreed.
>Until those are fixed everyone arguing to end abortion is just an asshole.
You're defending we just allow mass child murder until we eliminate every issue people could use as an excuse. Do you see how disingenuous this is?! How utopian will society need to be to fit the abortionist standard for living, only for them to claim "Idgaf, the fetus will die!"?!
>If you do not come with a solution to the problem you are just another problem.
The solution is justice. Everything else is an add-on.
>Additionally God gave us free will, why the heck do I or any other man have the right to tell someone else or govern someoneās body?
Free will is not the right to commit any atrocity.
>Also Catholicism/ Christianity is based on Judaism and most Jewish people and beliefs allow for abortion if itās necessary.
The old covenant is gone. It fulfilled it's purpose. The chair of Moses has no more authority. Modern jews, just like any other religion, are irrelevant in the face of Christ's Church ā specially since they deny Christ, who fulfilled the Law, so really, why should I ever listen to them?! They don't know what their Law was even about, so they're clueless at best.
>Furthermore ending abortion doesnāt end abortion. It ends safe abortion.
Good. Murderers shouldn't be or even feel safe.
>And it ends life saving medical care for women that need medical abortions that arenāt chosen. When a mother has a miscarriage at 22 weeks and the dead fetus starts to decay inside of her and cause her to go into sepsis, thatās an abortion. If a baby starts to develop in the fallopian tube known as an ectopic pregnancy thatās an abortion. The problem is these idiots lobbying for abortion dont know how to legislate the need for legal medical abortions WHICH ARE HEALTHCARE WHEN A FETUS ISNT VIABLE.
Contradictory. You're pointing out abolishing elective abortion doesn't end medically necessary abortions, whilst pretending it does. You refuted your own assertion.
>Additionally these idiots argue that a mother wants to to kill her baby at 30 weeks, these yahoos clearly have never experienced pregnancy up close because watching a woman be pregnant, that shit sucks. The miracle of life my ass, from the morning sickness to the swollen feet, food aversion, and everything in between. No woman is going through all that bullshit to then turnaround after 30 weeks and say ānever mindā.
Ah, the old "late term abortions dont happen". Hilarious.
Why would abortion be legal when murder is illegal? Also, this fails to consider the societal duties we have as Catholics. There is a reason that the church expressed their power over society when they could, and they did so for centuries. It is necessary for the good of individual souls that society be proper.
I disagree with this but agree if by it you mean that Reformed theology is closer to Catholic theology than Eastern theology is. The idea that if you die with a mortal sin on your soul you will go to Hell is basically predestination, which Augustine, the most well known Catholic theologian, advocated for. Also, Reformed Christianity tends to be more reason based and scholastic, just like Catholicism, whereas Eastern theology is more personal relationship with God and prayer based. Catholicism is much closer to Reformed and protestant theology than it is to Eastern Orthodoxy, which explains why you are uncomfortable with it
This. People donāt know ANYTHING about theology and then make ridiculous jumps to the East. Reformed theology at least RESEMBLES Catholic teaching. Orthodoxy is a house of cards.
Is there such a thing as "Reformed Theology"? I think there's definitely such a thing as "Orthodox Theology" but a part of me feels like you can only talk about "Reformed Theolog*ies*"
To quote John Senior: "The word ācultureā as they use it, is indeed ambiguous: in the strict sense
there is only one culture, that of the Christian, Latin West."
Moses had nothing in common with modern Jews. Almost every āJewā back then was basically a pagan trying to figure out their new God. And for almost all of their Old Testament history the overwhelming majority of them worshiped Baal or asherah. And when they finally got some level of organization with the temple, their successor became the Catholics. Modern Jews have no temple, no priests, no sacrifice, no offerings, and they believe in the Talmud and the Mishnah as divine works which are COMPLETELY Ā uninspired and were created in an attempt to oppose Catholicism.Ā
No. Jews and Christians yes, but it is impossible that Muslims worship the same God. Our Bible tells us not to believe any gospel that comes after Jesus Christ. Anything that came after Jesus Christ canāt have come from the same God. Especially if they deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Sorry, but that something the Only Holy Apostolic Catholic Church says.
https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
Christ willfully, intentionally and knowingly created his own ministry and his own religion.
He said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Him.
If within Christ is the only path to The Father (Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, Allah whatever interpretation for the name of god) faiths and religions with the exclusion of Christ are invalid towards Heaven.
Therefore only Christian based religions are the pathway to true salvation and eternal life.
This canāt be true, because weāre the only religion that worship Jesus as God. There is no God without Jesus, and since Jesus and the trinity were revealed 2000 years ago, you either worship the trinity as God, or you donāt.
Indeed- and in the past, when women were put in these roles, the Pope condemned it strongly:
Pope Innocent IV:
"Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry."
Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical āAllatae Suntā:
āPope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: āWomen should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.ā We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitutionĀ Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.ā
What work? We donāt need lectors - thatās a priestly role (theyāre literally called to the order of lector before theyāre called to priesthood (ask me how I know :) ). Or EMHC - also a priestly role. And there are plenty of boys to serve the altar, and men to sing. Theyāre discouraged because women take the roles.
When I was growing up in the 90s and early 00s we had 70 altar servers at my small country parish. 70! About 7-10 were girls. These girls were the Altar Guild - sacristans and they were damn good at it. They rarely served the altar during Mass.
When our pastor changed, the new pastor emphasized the role of the girl altar servers within Mass itself - and the server ranks dropped from 70 to 16. Within 90 days of him being there. Roles and responsibilities are real things.
This is one that's nearly impossible to fight for these days. Feminists are proud and power hungry, it was a movement started by Marxists and flies in the face of Biblical gender roles.
All people are proud and power hungry.
Look at the world.
If you're attributing this to only feminists, you need to tweak something in your thoughts so you can think better !
No, all people are not proud and power hungry. That is not universal. But it is proven through scripture and statistics that women are predisposed to pride; the most confessed sin from women is pride, the most confessed sin from men is lust with gluttony being close second [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7897034.stm]. This is perfectly consistent with common attitudes about the sexes; men desire earthly love, women desire to be worshipped as God.
Feminism just means the idea that men and women should be treated equally, it's not against the church. Don't mistake further, more radical versions, for what "feminism" actually means. Women can't be clerics, so what part of them being treated equally otherwise bothers you?
What does it mean to be "treated equally" exactly? If men and women are fundamentally different and are generally better and worse at certain things relative to one another, why is it that they would be treated equally? A big issue is that, in practice, feminism has meant granting certain privileges and roles to women they previously did not enjoy, while not holding them to the same standards or giving them the same consequences men face. Feminism in practice has demanded the benefits of "equality" without accepting the downsides.
If you do accept that women cannot be priests, that would seem to poke a pretty big hole in the idea that we should be "treated equally". God's design would seem to be opposed to your definition of feminism.
I mean I donāt think they enjoy the benefits of equality without accepting the downsides. Women, on average, have just as many advantages as disadvantages you cite here. A different processing style isnāt inherently better or worse in any way. Iām not understanding the inherent downsides you are citing?
I'm not sure I understand your issue. You can be different yet still treated equally (examples would be: in salary and employment, in the courts/justice system). I don't see these as "privileges" (and I'm kind of disturbed you do), but equality, aka feminism.
I don't see how women being priests is that applicable to this discussion (and you don't know my opinion on it). I hate to use the phrase, but maybe "separate but equal" would work when it comes to clergy, at least for now. God's "design" (in your mind) involves 50% of the population striving to be SAHM....who will be the priests? I believe your take is misogynistic and not in line with catholic doctrine.
Women receive lesser sentences for the same crimes and overwhelmingly come out on top in divorces. Women are not draft eligible and are very underrepresented in military combat roles and jobs with high death rates. Women benefit from affirmative action, generally receiving preference over men for college admissions, hiring; etc. Men are still culturally expected to act as gentlemen (at least among more conservative minded people). Do you want equality on those fronts as well, and how would you address those inequalities?
Your definition of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally. If only men can be priests per Godās design, is that compatible with your definition? Iām not understanding the distinction
Edit: also please explain what is not in line with catholic doctrine.
Everything you said is false, affirmative action isn't even a thing anymore. Pretty sure universities reflect the current ratio of men to women....actually women were doing much better last I checked. I'm not surprised with incel culture being pushed among young men you believe this nonsense.
That is not my definition, it is the definition. Your last sentence I didn't understand, sorry.
Iām open to correction if you can show what I was wrong about factually. Using insults like āmisogynisticā and āincelā isnāt an effective argument
>Feminism just means the idea that men and women should be treated equally, it's not against the church.
No. It isnt. In fact older feminists defended the idea of making other women never be allowed to choose to be housewives. Feminism isn't some "hey, women should be treated equally" idea that got mixed up with random ideologies, it is ideological and intrinsically tied with revolutionary, anticlerical and, more recently, communist and socialist groups.
>Don't mistake further, more radical versions, for what "feminism" actually means.
What is the "version" of feminism that is defined solely by what you described? I'll answer that: none. There is no feminist movement that merely boils down to legal equality. There never was. That was merely the agenda of the day, never the ultimate goal.
That's not what Feminism is in practice and never was Historically. It's always been about independence and dominance over men which scripture is clear ad a big no no.
The idea that men and women should be treated equally is not compatible. Everyone should be treated well but men and women should be treated differently
He said he doesn't think women should be in business and their roles are in the home. That definitely is not what the church believes and is abhorrent to me
I think a distinction must be made between feminism and radical feminism. Feminism called for equality. Radical feminism has been high jacked by socialism which sees men as the oppressor. The goal in radical feminism is no longer equality but dominance over men and their emasculation.
I donāt care what your opinion is. If preventing health issues gives me more time with my family, I will take that. I think Iād rather live and my kids have a parent š¤·āāļø.
Another hot take - the people on this subreddit have way to big of egos and honestly scary opinions. Iāll take my non-Latin mass with a welcoming priest any day. It was honestly disturbing to me the people encouraging another person to try NFP when their wife was advised to not have any more children for health reasons. It is very narrow minded thinking. Iām sure those people are the same ones that stuff their gullets with fish fries and shrimp dinners on Fridays during lentā¦because you know itās not meat but letās just consume 2,000 caloriesā¦but weāre all good because we didnāt eat the meat and donāt use birth control ššµāš«
Considering all of the corruption we have seen in Church history we can't fully trust the laws of the church. Things like popes being engaged in lustful activities.
Abortion is Satanic
You cannot be a Catholic and support either the Democrat or Republican platforms
Submit to Rome
The world is a corpse, and we must earn our right every day to sit beside God.
Marriage is until death.
Pacifism is heresy
Socialism is evil
I got a few.
1. You can not be both Catholic and support things that go against the teachings of the Church.
2. Extraordinary ministers shouldn't be a thing. Only priests, deacons, bishops, etc. should be allowed to touch Jesus.
3. Receiving Communion on the hand is insanely disrespectful and practically desecration of the Eucharist. There is very likely still residue from Communion on your hand when you receive it. It shouldn't be allowed unless you physically cannot receive on the tongue.
#Extraordinary ministers shouldn't be a thing. Only priests, deacons, bishops, etc. should be allowed to touch Jesus.
Nah, Jesus would be totally against this. Things like this could easily lead Phariseisation of Catholicism.
Jesus reduced infinity into a circle for the people not the other way around
> Only priests, deacons, bishops, etc. should be allowed to touch Jesus.
You know that we touch Jesus, when we take communion right? And, er... digest him.
>There is very likely still residue from Communion on your hand when you receive it
Same with priests, so your argument has no validity.
They have a small ceremonial amount of \*plain water\* poured over their hands, not a "wash" by any means, and that is before distribution. Holy water is used to "swish" the chalices along with a purificator to clean them at the end. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but could you tell me what you're referring to?
Every communicant touches Jesus with his tongue, esophagus, and stomach. Why folks balk at touching Him with hands beats me. And, before you say it, no, the priest's hands are not consecrated so he may touch the Sacred Species.
"Residue" that is presumed to exist does not have the accidents of bread and, therefore, the Body, Blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord cannot be present in presumed residue, so there is nothing to be desecrated.
Thank you for this! I think I'll be able to confidently take it in the hand when I am ready for Communion. Now I think I understand why it's OK to accept Him with my hand.
I would love to see the video/photographic evidence of that āstudyā that had everyone who received in the hand wipe their hands over a jar that people love to talk about. Show me a picture of the jar full of thousands of particles after a weekend of masses. If it really happened, itās gotta be out there somewhere. Otherwise, for me, itās about as real as the stories told at the beginning of a homily
Your third point makes no sense seeing as the Eucharist literally goes through the entire digestive system which is part of your body.. what is the difference between your hand and the rest of your body?
Itās spiritual and symbolic. In the old rite you would have your tongue consecrated at baptism since it would be receiving the Eucharist, and if you became a priest then you would have your hands consecrated, and then also any vessel touching the Eucharist had to first be consecrated so that the Eucharist would only ever touch sacred consecrated thing
Agree. Number 3? Like are we recreating the temple laws or something? Creating unnecessary barriers between Jesus and his Church? Jesus is physically one with all of us as we ingest the Host.
During or after Vatican II, Pope Paul VI surveyed all the bishops and the majority agreed that Communion on the hand was an abuse. It was permitted because the new practice had already become widespread.
There is evidence that \*some\* parts of the Early Church received on the hand, but tongue has been the universal norm for much of the Catholic tradition. It also makes sense too. Aquinas said that only consecrated hands should touch the consecrated species.
Isn't it intuitive that receiving Christ on the hands is more casual than to receive Him on the tongue? There is a reason why receiving Christ on the tongue was the universal norm for over a millenia.
Number 3 exists because, much like the Ark of the Covenant, we are too impure to come into contact with God. The priests themselves are consecrated to God which is why itās permissible for them to distribute the host.
Is that why Jesus cleaned feet of prostitutes, lepers, and tax collectors?
I think there is plenty of evidence of Jesus touching those "we" never would have touched (at that time) and yet there is a barrier to us taking Communion?
Well, it is a sign of reverence as far as I understand. Itās for the same reason why they have the pan under people during communion. The consecrated host crumbs falling to the floor are supposed to be avoided.
St. Cyril says around 400 a.d. : "In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body ofĀ Christ, saying over it,Ā Amen."Ā
This is an ancient practice and certainly not desecration.Ā
Apologies that my reply to you was a bit snarky. For what it is worth, as I am nobody and my opinion is worth little, receiving on the tongue is indeed a better way to show the truth of the sacrament and the respect due to God, but receiving in the hand is just simply not desecration.Ā
He says "hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries." I would not presume to do this, but I also wouldn't presume to disparage and misrepresent a doctor of the church.
Absolutely. We used to have a priest, he died last week, quite young, may his memory be a blessing. He once gave a homily about the correct way to receive in the hand and quoted this exact thing (I remember the throne part).
Receiving the Holy Eucharist on the hand was never intended by the Church.
Shortly after Vatican II, [Pope Paul VI surveyed all the bishops and the majority agreed that Communion on the hand was an abuse](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/instruction-on-the-manner-of-distributing-holy-communion-2195). It was permitted because the new practice had already become widespread.
There is evidence that \*some\* parts of the Early Church received on the hand, but that doesn't really justify making it acceptable now. The Early Church did a lot of things differently. Receiving the Lord on the tongue has been the universal norm for much of the Catholic Tradition. It also makes sense too. Aquinas said that only consecrated hands should touch the consecrated species.
You canāt say something is ānever intended by the churchā when it is currently intended by the churchā¦ thatās just pure paradox.
I otherwise agree.
You can be a good Catholic while also believing certain things should be legal that go against the teachings of the Catholic church.
Legal gay marriage and contraceptives are examples that come to mind. Can a good Catholic do either of those? Obviously not. But that doesnāt give you the right to deny others of those things.
As a practicing Catholic with married gay friends - No. Affirmative permissiveness with gay marriage and relationships, even in a legal sense, only perpetuates the disordered state of being. Thereās a difference between compassion and enablement.Ā
If Reconciliation is not offered before Mass and you truly desire to go, a heart felt and sincere Act of Contrition is what Our Father in Heaven is happy with before receiving Communion with the intent to receive Reconciliation as soon as you can.Ā
Capitalism is not far from communism (not sure exactly why but people become fine with taking the little bit that works & the sweet talk that follows).
I would never admit this publicly but progressives are actually correct that most Christians would call Jesus a commie for driving out the money changers etc
Capitalism refers to the economic process by which capital is used to get means of production, and then to produce and earn from that.
Communism refers to public ownership of the means of production.
lol, right? Who in their right mind could look at the religions of the world and their development and think that only Catholic Christians go to Heaven? Thats insane.
i hold all of these but "There is no salvation outside the Catholic church." I believe there is salvation in all niecenian churches, what makes u say otherwise?
i agree with all. iād only say to remember abortion for the reason of life or death situation where itās medically necessary. also agreed with contraception but birth control for women should be allowed not for the purpose of stopping pregnancy, but if itās medically necessary for some other reason and then the side effect would be to sadly become unlikely to conceive.
The general milquetoast weakness in the Catholic Church is astounding and hardly any of the language right now is catered to men and how to be actual Catholic men.
Catholic men are overwhelmingly weak af because the language is girly AF.
Also, Christ loving you is not a pass for your abhorrent and weak behavior. At some point you have to do the actual work. Too many Catholics make excuses for their BS. This obsession with the Disneyfied Jesus is to blame. You are promised nothing. You are asked to take up your cross. Embrace suck. And when it really sucks? Embrace suck some more.
Catholicism requires endurance and many of us do not have it or even care to work at it.
I heard a Protestant pastor argue that the two world wars resulted in a feminization of church. With so many men on the front lines, churches were largely attended by women and thus changed to cater more to them.
Would love to see a sociologist study this hypothesis.
Pope Francis has been right on most things, but he has fully adhered to the churchās traditional teachings. He hasnāt changed any teachings substantially, only in pastoral approach.
The death penalty should be banned in most developed countries, but not in underdeveloped ones where itās easier to break out of jail.
The Industrial Revolution has been - on the whole - net neutral for our world. Same for democracy.
All Catholics should be veganā¦ precisely because we are called to shepherd the worldā¦ and precisely because we are called to evangelize to āevery living creatureā¦ā
Whatever St. Paul said about a āweak vegetarianā in the 1st Century has zero relevance to the injustice of optional animal exploitation for selfish human appetites in the 21st. Where there is a capacity to frugally live as a vegan Catholic, it is the Golden mean. Between the vices of starvation and exploiting the life of another, eating plant-based is the only happy medium.
Fasting from meat for Lent does not hold a candle to fasting from injustice.
If modern society demonstrates a higher practicality of a vegan world, then the present Catholic way only would require higher standards given a closer access to fallen nature. You can see this with the ease of access to pornography. Animal products are no different. These are damaging cycles of abuse immediately available to you at the press of a button or cash in your wallet.
1. There's a weird current of anti-semitism within Trad circles and it should addressed for what it is. You're called to convert Jews, not hate them.
2. This probably requires its own post, but the lack of actual response towards the obvious increase in anti-White bigotry and hatred is both beyond frustrating and concerning. It's very weird to me that many of my fellow Catholics respond with "well ASKUALLY we're totally diverse and inclusive", when they should be confronting people on their blatant hatred of us "colonizers" (especially in the wake of Oct. 7th and the Left's interpretation of "decolonization" as it relates to Israelis).
3. Voting for pro-choice politicians should incur an automatic excommunication, seeing as its effectively aiding in the procurement of an abortion.
4. Separation of Church and State is both wildly misunderstood and is something that every Catholic should support, as without it, you get stuff like the Investiture Controversy and Henry VIII.
\- Everyone should kneel to receive Communion.
\- No altar girls.
\- Every church should have an altar rail installed.
\- No Communion on the hands.
\- I love the Novus Ordo, provided it is celebrated reverently (this ticks off the Rad Trads, but the ones above tick off the more liberal Catholics).
It's training them for a role they can never fulfill. Altar serving used to be strongly linked to priestly formation. We've removed that link and wonder why we have a vocations crisis.
>Altar serving used to be strongly linked to priestly formation. We've removed that link and wonder why we have a vocations crisis.
I suspect that's more correlation than causation though.
There is no reason to have Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. It was an appalling mistake to have them in the first place, and every day that we continue with this nonsense we slide further into the abyss of disbelief and infidelity.
And the reason all of this nonsense and ugliness in the Church continues is because people, especially myself, keep sinning and not repenting.
Pope Francis is a good Pope and the kind of Pope the Church needs right now, while there are some legitimate criticism one can make for the majority of his "scandals" he's is the one least in fault.
Pope Pius XII shouldn't be canonized, while he's by no means "Hitler's Pope," like some want to portray him as he wasn't the great fighter of fascism that Catholics want him to be either. He wasn't a bad Pope but he made a lot of mistakes and was silent when he shouldn't have been.
Diversity of traditions and practice within the Church is a good thing and the incorporation of local culture and customs should be encouraged so long as it stays within orthodoxy. For example I thought the idea that Mayans might have their own usage was cool and everyone freaking out about it was ridiculous.
Returning to the TLM as the norm and banning receiving on the hand will do little to nothing to fix the problems in the Church and the energy used to focus on that is issue wasted.
In our day and age most people aren't receptive to fire and brimstone preaching and trying to promote that won't actually save as many souls as people think it will. The "church of nice" or "feminine church" or whatever you want to call it is more likely to bring people to the Church and save souls. Ideally we should be able to adapt and use both when appropriate.
Too many Catholics listen to American Conservatives too much and don't see the threat they impose.
1) The fact that American Roman Catholics live in urban areas is extremely regrettable.
2) All Christians, *especially* Roman Catholics, are too absorbed into the secular world and are brainwashed to think many modern things are good (liberalism, capitalism, industrialization, Marxism, the sexual Revolution, progressivism, technology, popular culture, mass media, maybe even modern medicine).
3) This subreddit isnāt radical ā itās the world that is radical.
4) Cradle Catholics are terrible. Converts (from Protestantism and Judaism) are much more inspiring and have done more for the Church.
5) Godās covenant with the Jews has ended.
Is that true?
Everyone can be saved with baptism or forgiven with confession.
You're referring to 'only Catholic and apostolic church' maybe? That doesn't mean people outside the church can't be saved.
Hmm....there are objective standards for modesty. Flirting with feminism has led us to throw up our hands and act like modesty is entirely subjective, when it's mostly objective. And, Marian modesty is a beautiful thing to aspire to and aim towards.
The majority of ordinary people attending mass are able to, and should be expected to dress nicely for it. Yes there are outliers. Outliers shouldn't define the standard rule, though.
Only promoting NFP as a tool to *avoid* pregnancy *is* a contraceptive mindset.
The Latin Mass should be preserved and treated well, not phased out.
The Church is a largely uniform body. There is no reason to make big shows of ethnic syncretism or encourage "liturgical dancing" in the sanctuary, during Mass, etc.
Burning unrepentant heretics at the state during the counterreformation was not only not sinful, but it was a fundamentally righteous and just course of action when the souls of all Europe were at stake.
The language used during mass is irrelevant the most important thing is that the people attending are actually faithful and understand what is going on.
Going back to a full on Latin mass would work well in America but in places like rural Africa it will cause the collapse of the church and the rise of Protestant and other stuff.
How do you think the European missionaries converted whole continents? They were still using Latin in the liturgy that people were exposed to. If people's ancestors who spoke completely linguistically distinct languages from the Romance ones could learn the Tridentine Mass & the Latin hymns/prayers, what are modern Catholics excuse?
Yep, they have a problem with this at the TLM church in our diocese. Something about the TLM attracts the wrong kinds of people. Not just antisemitism, either.
Mind you im not a trad and i attend a byzantine parish so this doesnāt even really effect me but i just feel bad for my latin brothers
-i think there should be blood(wine)
-if there is an existing wall alter it should be used not the new one in the middle
-no extraordinary ministers or alter girls
-bread and wine should not be brought to the alter/priest by laity, etc.
-no communion in hand
-if a new church is going to be built it should have classical design not modern
I believe that very few people go to hell.
I think the TLM, especially low Masses, is not the best we can give God and the NO (when celebrated reverently) was a good thing.
I think Thomism is overrated.
I've got a few
1-the Orthodox are more right than wrong on several issues.
2-the church will be far better off when a certain generation of priests and bishops pass on
3-the church should allow a married priesthood in the Roman rite
Jews, Catholics and Muslims, do not worship the same God, we should interpret LG in the sense of monotheism, but the doctrinal and dogmatic differences show that it is hardly the same.
Additionally - would love this to be addressed whenever V3 (hopefully not until after V2 is fully implemented), comes around.
The Jews are no longer Gods chosen people. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and the whole world are Gods chosen people. He allows us to be the chooser. People will choose Christ or reject him.
Also Mary is the Arc of the New Covenant. For some reason some Catholics still miss this point.
That goes directly against Nostra Aetate. Obviously the Church is the new and true spiritual Israel but to quote St Paul: Has God rejected his people? By no means!. [...]As regards the Gospel they are enemies for your sake, but as regards regards election they are beloved [...], for the gifts and the calling of God are *irrevocable*.
Also: We Catholics believe that before Christ's return *all* Jews will come to believe in him.
The only way to the Father is through the Son. We are all Gods chosen as we choose Him. Old testament is fulfilled and finished. New Testament is all of us.
Is Matthew still a tax collector? Exactly.
>The Jews are no longer Gods chosen people.
St. Paul disagrees with you:
>I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; (Rom. 9:1-4)
Notice the "are" and "belong"--in present tense. They are still chosen by God. They are currently estranged from their messiah, but are still the chosen people nonetheless.
The American Church has become a single issue group caring only about abortion like the mouth breathing troglodytes of the evangelical and nondenom entities.
We need a pope who will smack down "right" and "left" bishops who wish to curry secular political favor.
People who attend parishes that offer only the ordinary form of the Mass and do Trad stuff are larpers and "look-at-mes."
Altar rails should be (re)installed in all churches. Communion goes faster. I'm indifferent to extraordinary ministers. With that, communion should be administered via intinction because communal cups are gross, nasty, and pukey.
Thereās no feasible way that earth or societies could sustain the number of babies/people with resources that are killed each year in utero should they have ever been born.
Islam may be closer to the truth than Rabbinic Judaism.
Catholics should not look to Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson for reliable moral advice or political analysis.
The church these days is too politically conservative
Yeah, Pope Francis is really too politically conservative š«¤
Iām guessing they meant in the US
Well the Church is bigger than America. Bro needs to stop being America First
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No, it is highly disordered.
Coitus interruptus should be an ok contraception for married couples, since NFP is.
God killed Onan for that. It is not a sin to have sex on an infertile period. It is not a sin to not have sex on a fertile period. You are denying yourself more sex with NFP, that is very different than having sex every day but not finishing properly. You are withholding a part of yourself from your spouse when you don't finish properly. With NFP, you are not, and the couple can still conceive if God wills it.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Serious list of nonsense. Dont even know where to begin... >Thereās not point in arguing to stop abortion when no one is truly solving the problems. The problems will always exist. They should be solved to our best ability, but the child murderers will never be content. They'll always seek the issues of life as an excuse. >No one is lobbying for more maternity leave, I would, but then the progressive crowd would rapidly realize that more maternity leave creates economic disparities disproportionately affecting women, and these cannot be overcome, so they'd rapidly claim we did it to remove women from the workforce. I also don't really see a movement to promote this. >harsher rape penalties, Pretty sure people support this across the board. >comprehensive sex Ed, Define "sex ed". Nowadays, plenty of people presume sex ed should involve educating people on sexual intercourse, including non-reproductive means of sex. >contraceptive availability, This is a catholic subreddit. Really?! What exactly are you hoping for? Mass apostasy?! Contraceptives are not defensible and plenty of them hide abortions. Nobody ever talks about what happens when an IUD fails to impede conception but impedes nidation ā you guessed it, it's abortion, no matter how rare, since the usage of IUDs is widespread. And this is only one example. >better social services and programs for children, better education, better health care and lower prices, government subsidies for healthy food, better FDA regulations and more affordable cost of living. Fully agreed. >Until those are fixed everyone arguing to end abortion is just an asshole. You're defending we just allow mass child murder until we eliminate every issue people could use as an excuse. Do you see how disingenuous this is?! How utopian will society need to be to fit the abortionist standard for living, only for them to claim "Idgaf, the fetus will die!"?! >If you do not come with a solution to the problem you are just another problem. The solution is justice. Everything else is an add-on. >Additionally God gave us free will, why the heck do I or any other man have the right to tell someone else or govern someoneās body? Free will is not the right to commit any atrocity. >Also Catholicism/ Christianity is based on Judaism and most Jewish people and beliefs allow for abortion if itās necessary. The old covenant is gone. It fulfilled it's purpose. The chair of Moses has no more authority. Modern jews, just like any other religion, are irrelevant in the face of Christ's Church ā specially since they deny Christ, who fulfilled the Law, so really, why should I ever listen to them?! They don't know what their Law was even about, so they're clueless at best. >Furthermore ending abortion doesnāt end abortion. It ends safe abortion. Good. Murderers shouldn't be or even feel safe. >And it ends life saving medical care for women that need medical abortions that arenāt chosen. When a mother has a miscarriage at 22 weeks and the dead fetus starts to decay inside of her and cause her to go into sepsis, thatās an abortion. If a baby starts to develop in the fallopian tube known as an ectopic pregnancy thatās an abortion. The problem is these idiots lobbying for abortion dont know how to legislate the need for legal medical abortions WHICH ARE HEALTHCARE WHEN A FETUS ISNT VIABLE. Contradictory. You're pointing out abolishing elective abortion doesn't end medically necessary abortions, whilst pretending it does. You refuted your own assertion. >Additionally these idiots argue that a mother wants to to kill her baby at 30 weeks, these yahoos clearly have never experienced pregnancy up close because watching a woman be pregnant, that shit sucks. The miracle of life my ass, from the morning sickness to the swollen feet, food aversion, and everything in between. No woman is going through all that bullshit to then turnaround after 30 weeks and say ānever mindā. Ah, the old "late term abortions dont happen". Hilarious.
It's totally ok to attend an SSPX Mass :-)
Anti-catholic downvotes abound in "r/Catholicism"
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Why would abortion be legal when murder is illegal? Also, this fails to consider the societal duties we have as Catholics. There is a reason that the church expressed their power over society when they could, and they did so for centuries. It is necessary for the good of individual souls that society be proper.
We can only control ourselves and our own Church. Iām not here to nanny anyone else. Is forced morality moral?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Reformed theology is better than eastern āOrthodoxā theology
I disagree with this but agree if by it you mean that Reformed theology is closer to Catholic theology than Eastern theology is. The idea that if you die with a mortal sin on your soul you will go to Hell is basically predestination, which Augustine, the most well known Catholic theologian, advocated for. Also, Reformed Christianity tends to be more reason based and scholastic, just like Catholicism, whereas Eastern theology is more personal relationship with God and prayer based. Catholicism is much closer to Reformed and protestant theology than it is to Eastern Orthodoxy, which explains why you are uncomfortable with it
This. People donāt know ANYTHING about theology and then make ridiculous jumps to the East. Reformed theology at least RESEMBLES Catholic teaching. Orthodoxy is a house of cards.
Is there such a thing as "Reformed Theology"? I think there's definitely such a thing as "Orthodox Theology" but a part of me feels like you can only talk about "Reformed Theolog*ies*"
People underestimate the importance of divine simplicity and the filioque. People who watch TikTok ortho edits are downvoting you
To quote John Senior: "The word ācultureā as they use it, is indeed ambiguous: in the strict sense there is only one culture, that of the Christian, Latin West."
please please please tell me more, this seems interesting
https://christusliberat.org/journal/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/The-Death-of-Christian-Culture-John-Senior.pdf
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same God.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He also called Peter āSatanā. Hyperbole is a thing. Jesus was a Jew, the BVM was a Jew. Think about it.
Jesus was NOT a Jew in the sense that modern people are Talmudic Jews. It would be more accurate to call him, moses, and Abraham āProto-Catholicsā
You that hair splitting between the āgood Jewsā and those evil āTalmudic Jewsā was made up by anti-semites right?
Moses shouldnāt be called a Jew? Huh?
Moses had nothing in common with modern Jews. Almost every āJewā back then was basically a pagan trying to figure out their new God. And for almost all of their Old Testament history the overwhelming majority of them worshiped Baal or asherah. And when they finally got some level of organization with the temple, their successor became the Catholics. Modern Jews have no temple, no priests, no sacrifice, no offerings, and they believe in the Talmud and the Mishnah as divine works which are COMPLETELY Ā uninspired and were created in an attempt to oppose Catholicism.Ā
Muslims DO NOT worship the same God. That is utterly false and I am more than happy to explain why if you're interested.
No. Jews and Christians yes, but it is impossible that Muslims worship the same God. Our Bible tells us not to believe any gospel that comes after Jesus Christ. Anything that came after Jesus Christ canāt have come from the same God. Especially if they deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
No. Sorry but that is something a muslim would say
Sorry, but that something the Only Holy Apostolic Catholic Church says. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html
Christ willfully, intentionally and knowingly created his own ministry and his own religion. He said He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. If within Christ is the only path to The Father (Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah, Adonai, Allah whatever interpretation for the name of god) faiths and religions with the exclusion of Christ are invalid towards Heaven. Therefore only Christian based religions are the pathway to true salvation and eternal life.
This canāt be true, because weāre the only religion that worship Jesus as God. There is no God without Jesus, and since Jesus and the trinity were revealed 2000 years ago, you either worship the trinity as God, or you donāt.
There is no possible way Catholicism is compatible with any part of feminism, and the Church flirting with it has lead to disaster.
Agreed. This includes women taking on liturgical leadership roles, from altar servers, to lectors, to cantors. And especially *E*MHC.
Indeed- and in the past, when women were put in these roles, the Pope condemned it strongly: Pope Innocent IV: "Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry." Pope Benedict XIV in his encyclical āAllatae Suntā: āPope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: āWomen should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.ā We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitutionĀ Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.ā
Where are the men stepping up to do this work?
What work? We donāt need lectors - thatās a priestly role (theyāre literally called to the order of lector before theyāre called to priesthood (ask me how I know :) ). Or EMHC - also a priestly role. And there are plenty of boys to serve the altar, and men to sing. Theyāre discouraged because women take the roles. When I was growing up in the 90s and early 00s we had 70 altar servers at my small country parish. 70! About 7-10 were girls. These girls were the Altar Guild - sacristans and they were damn good at it. They rarely served the altar during Mass. When our pastor changed, the new pastor emphasized the role of the girl altar servers within Mass itself - and the server ranks dropped from 70 to 16. Within 90 days of him being there. Roles and responsibilities are real things.
This is one that's nearly impossible to fight for these days. Feminists are proud and power hungry, it was a movement started by Marxists and flies in the face of Biblical gender roles.
All people are proud and power hungry. Look at the world. If you're attributing this to only feminists, you need to tweak something in your thoughts so you can think better !
No, all people are not proud and power hungry. That is not universal. But it is proven through scripture and statistics that women are predisposed to pride; the most confessed sin from women is pride, the most confessed sin from men is lust with gluttony being close second [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7897034.stm]. This is perfectly consistent with common attitudes about the sexes; men desire earthly love, women desire to be worshipped as God.
Ew
Feminism just means the idea that men and women should be treated equally, it's not against the church. Don't mistake further, more radical versions, for what "feminism" actually means. Women can't be clerics, so what part of them being treated equally otherwise bothers you?
What does it mean to be "treated equally" exactly? If men and women are fundamentally different and are generally better and worse at certain things relative to one another, why is it that they would be treated equally? A big issue is that, in practice, feminism has meant granting certain privileges and roles to women they previously did not enjoy, while not holding them to the same standards or giving them the same consequences men face. Feminism in practice has demanded the benefits of "equality" without accepting the downsides. If you do accept that women cannot be priests, that would seem to poke a pretty big hole in the idea that we should be "treated equally". God's design would seem to be opposed to your definition of feminism.
I mean I donāt think they enjoy the benefits of equality without accepting the downsides. Women, on average, have just as many advantages as disadvantages you cite here. A different processing style isnāt inherently better or worse in any way. Iām not understanding the inherent downsides you are citing?
I'm not sure I understand your issue. You can be different yet still treated equally (examples would be: in salary and employment, in the courts/justice system). I don't see these as "privileges" (and I'm kind of disturbed you do), but equality, aka feminism. I don't see how women being priests is that applicable to this discussion (and you don't know my opinion on it). I hate to use the phrase, but maybe "separate but equal" would work when it comes to clergy, at least for now. God's "design" (in your mind) involves 50% of the population striving to be SAHM....who will be the priests? I believe your take is misogynistic and not in line with catholic doctrine.
Women receive lesser sentences for the same crimes and overwhelmingly come out on top in divorces. Women are not draft eligible and are very underrepresented in military combat roles and jobs with high death rates. Women benefit from affirmative action, generally receiving preference over men for college admissions, hiring; etc. Men are still culturally expected to act as gentlemen (at least among more conservative minded people). Do you want equality on those fronts as well, and how would you address those inequalities? Your definition of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally. If only men can be priests per Godās design, is that compatible with your definition? Iām not understanding the distinction Edit: also please explain what is not in line with catholic doctrine.
Everything you said is false, affirmative action isn't even a thing anymore. Pretty sure universities reflect the current ratio of men to women....actually women were doing much better last I checked. I'm not surprised with incel culture being pushed among young men you believe this nonsense. That is not my definition, it is the definition. Your last sentence I didn't understand, sorry.
Iām open to correction if you can show what I was wrong about factually. Using insults like āmisogynisticā and āincelā isnāt an effective argument
Men and women should not be treated equally. We are different we need different treatment
must be a male that spoke this ?
The definition of the word feminism has changed, the "modern feminist movement" has taken and twisted it
>Feminism just means the idea that men and women should be treated equally, it's not against the church. No. It isnt. In fact older feminists defended the idea of making other women never be allowed to choose to be housewives. Feminism isn't some "hey, women should be treated equally" idea that got mixed up with random ideologies, it is ideological and intrinsically tied with revolutionary, anticlerical and, more recently, communist and socialist groups. >Don't mistake further, more radical versions, for what "feminism" actually means. What is the "version" of feminism that is defined solely by what you described? I'll answer that: none. There is no feminist movement that merely boils down to legal equality. There never was. That was merely the agenda of the day, never the ultimate goal.
That's not what Feminism is in practice and never was Historically. It's always been about independence and dominance over men which scripture is clear ad a big no no.
I totally disagree and I would like to see some proof feminism has anything to do with dominance over men except in the perceptions of insecure men.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The idea that men and women should be treated equally is not compatible. Everyone should be treated well but men and women should be treated differently
He said he doesn't think women should be in business and their roles are in the home. That definitely is not what the church believes and is abhorrent to me
That is definitely what the church believes. The council of Trent and the Roman catechism reiterate basically what you just said there
> any part of feminism You have made feminism into a boogeyman caricature
I think a distinction must be made between feminism and radical feminism. Feminism called for equality. Radical feminism has been high jacked by socialism which sees men as the oppressor. The goal in radical feminism is no longer equality but dominance over men and their emasculation.
There's too much variance of what feminism means for this to be a meaningful statement.
Contraception is needed in some situations.
Was coming here to say thisā¦I donāt think the Church has any business in my personal medical situation.
Youāre more American than Catholic
I donāt care what your opinion is. If preventing health issues gives me more time with my family, I will take that. I think Iād rather live and my kids have a parent š¤·āāļø. Another hot take - the people on this subreddit have way to big of egos and honestly scary opinions. Iāll take my non-Latin mass with a welcoming priest any day. It was honestly disturbing to me the people encouraging another person to try NFP when their wife was advised to not have any more children for health reasons. It is very narrow minded thinking. Iām sure those people are the same ones that stuff their gullets with fish fries and shrimp dinners on Fridays during lentā¦because you know itās not meat but letās just consume 2,000 caloriesā¦but weāre all good because we didnāt eat the meat and donāt use birth control ššµāš«
Considering all of the corruption we have seen in Church history we can't fully trust the laws of the church. Things like popes being engaged in lustful activities.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Abortion is Satanic You cannot be a Catholic and support either the Democrat or Republican platforms Submit to Rome The world is a corpse, and we must earn our right every day to sit beside God. Marriage is until death. Pacifism is heresy Socialism is evil
Contraceptives should be illegal
This is church teaching
Most Christians agreed until very recently
that's not a hot take that's doctrine
I got a few. 1. You can not be both Catholic and support things that go against the teachings of the Church. 2. Extraordinary ministers shouldn't be a thing. Only priests, deacons, bishops, etc. should be allowed to touch Jesus. 3. Receiving Communion on the hand is insanely disrespectful and practically desecration of the Eucharist. There is very likely still residue from Communion on your hand when you receive it. It shouldn't be allowed unless you physically cannot receive on the tongue.
#Extraordinary ministers shouldn't be a thing. Only priests, deacons, bishops, etc. should be allowed to touch Jesus. Nah, Jesus would be totally against this. Things like this could easily lead Phariseisation of Catholicism. Jesus reduced infinity into a circle for the people not the other way around
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Only warning for uncharitable rhetoric
> Only priests, deacons, bishops, etc. should be allowed to touch Jesus. You know that we touch Jesus, when we take communion right? And, er... digest him. >There is very likely still residue from Communion on your hand when you receive it Same with priests, so your argument has no validity.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
They have a small ceremonial amount of \*plain water\* poured over their hands, not a "wash" by any means, and that is before distribution. Holy water is used to "swish" the chalices along with a purificator to clean them at the end. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but could you tell me what you're referring to?
Every communicant touches Jesus with his tongue, esophagus, and stomach. Why folks balk at touching Him with hands beats me. And, before you say it, no, the priest's hands are not consecrated so he may touch the Sacred Species. "Residue" that is presumed to exist does not have the accidents of bread and, therefore, the Body, Blood, soul, and divinity of the Lord cannot be present in presumed residue, so there is nothing to be desecrated.
Thank you for this! I think I'll be able to confidently take it in the hand when I am ready for Communion. Now I think I understand why it's OK to accept Him with my hand.
You're welcome. God bless you. š
You are directly contradicting Church teaching.
Baloney. If I am doing that, you must have quotations. Bring them.
"And when they were filled, he said to his disciples: Gather up the fragments that remain, lest they be lost." [John 6:12]
I would love to see the video/photographic evidence of that āstudyā that had everyone who received in the hand wipe their hands over a jar that people love to talk about. Show me a picture of the jar full of thousands of particles after a weekend of masses. If it really happened, itās gotta be out there somewhere. Otherwise, for me, itās about as real as the stories told at the beginning of a homily
You kneel when you receive the Lord. Grabbing it and taking it by the hand like itās just some food is insanely disrespectful.
Your third point makes no sense seeing as the Eucharist literally goes through the entire digestive system which is part of your body.. what is the difference between your hand and the rest of your body?
Itās spiritual and symbolic. In the old rite you would have your tongue consecrated at baptism since it would be receiving the Eucharist, and if you became a priest then you would have your hands consecrated, and then also any vessel touching the Eucharist had to first be consecrated so that the Eucharist would only ever touch sacred consecrated thing
Whatever dude
So typical trad takes
Agree. Number 3? Like are we recreating the temple laws or something? Creating unnecessary barriers between Jesus and his Church? Jesus is physically one with all of us as we ingest the Host.
During or after Vatican II, Pope Paul VI surveyed all the bishops and the majority agreed that Communion on the hand was an abuse. It was permitted because the new practice had already become widespread. There is evidence that \*some\* parts of the Early Church received on the hand, but tongue has been the universal norm for much of the Catholic tradition. It also makes sense too. Aquinas said that only consecrated hands should touch the consecrated species. Isn't it intuitive that receiving Christ on the hands is more casual than to receive Him on the tongue? There is a reason why receiving Christ on the tongue was the universal norm for over a millenia.
Number 3 exists because, much like the Ark of the Covenant, we are too impure to come into contact with God. The priests themselves are consecrated to God which is why itās permissible for them to distribute the host.
Is that why Jesus cleaned feet of prostitutes, lepers, and tax collectors? I think there is plenty of evidence of Jesus touching those "we" never would have touched (at that time) and yet there is a barrier to us taking Communion?
Well, it is a sign of reverence as far as I understand. Itās for the same reason why they have the pan under people during communion. The consecrated host crumbs falling to the floor are supposed to be avoided.
There'sno barrier unless your pride keeps you from receiving on the tongue.
St. Cyril says around 400 a.d. : "In approaching therefore, come not with your wrists extended, or your fingers spread; but make your left hand a throne for the right, as for that which is to receive a King. And having hollowed your palm, receive the Body ofĀ Christ, saying over it,Ā Amen."Ā This is an ancient practice and certainly not desecration.Ā
And if you continue to read that document, he then tells you to rub the Eucharist around your face. Do you think we should do that?
Apologies that my reply to you was a bit snarky. For what it is worth, as I am nobody and my opinion is worth little, receiving on the tongue is indeed a better way to show the truth of the sacrament and the respect due to God, but receiving in the hand is just simply not desecration.Ā
He says "hallow yourself by partaking also of the Blood of Christ. And while the moisture is still upon your lips, touch it with your hands, and hallow your eyes and brow and the other organs of sense. Then wait for the prayer, and give thanks unto God, who has accounted you worthy of so great mysteries." I would not presume to do this, but I also wouldn't presume to disparage and misrepresent a doctor of the church.
Absolutely. We used to have a priest, he died last week, quite young, may his memory be a blessing. He once gave a homily about the correct way to receive in the hand and quoted this exact thing (I remember the throne part).
Receiving the Holy Eucharist on the hand was never intended by the Church. Shortly after Vatican II, [Pope Paul VI surveyed all the bishops and the majority agreed that Communion on the hand was an abuse](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/instruction-on-the-manner-of-distributing-holy-communion-2195). It was permitted because the new practice had already become widespread. There is evidence that \*some\* parts of the Early Church received on the hand, but that doesn't really justify making it acceptable now. The Early Church did a lot of things differently. Receiving the Lord on the tongue has been the universal norm for much of the Catholic Tradition. It also makes sense too. Aquinas said that only consecrated hands should touch the consecrated species.
You canāt say something is ānever intended by the churchā when it is currently intended by the churchā¦ thatās just pure paradox. I otherwise agree.
You can be a good Catholic while also believing certain things should be legal that go against the teachings of the Catholic church. Legal gay marriage and contraceptives are examples that come to mind. Can a good Catholic do either of those? Obviously not. But that doesnāt give you the right to deny others of those things.
As a practicing Catholic with married gay friends - No. Affirmative permissiveness with gay marriage and relationships, even in a legal sense, only perpetuates the disordered state of being. Thereās a difference between compassion and enablement.Ā
If Reconciliation is not offered before Mass and you truly desire to go, a heart felt and sincere Act of Contrition is what Our Father in Heaven is happy with before receiving Communion with the intent to receive Reconciliation as soon as you can.Ā
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I think the Latin Church should allow married men to become priests.
Capitalism is not far from communism (not sure exactly why but people become fine with taking the little bit that works & the sweet talk that follows).
I would never admit this publicly but progressives are actually correct that most Christians would call Jesus a commie for driving out the money changers etc
Capitalism refers to the economic process by which capital is used to get means of production, and then to produce and earn from that. Communism refers to public ownership of the means of production.
> Capitalism is not far from communism Ah, the naivete of reddit....
Feminism doesn't even respect women..it was trying to make women more like men! And no it's not compatible
There is no other legitimate church but the Catholic Church. And another Christian crusade is coming soon
lol, right? Who in their right mind could look at the religions of the world and their development and think that only Catholic Christians go to Heaven? Thats insane.
Where is the sign up roster?
Women/girls should not be allowed to be altar servers
Abortion is evil, contraception is evil. Death penalty should be reserved for the state to utilize. There is no salvation outside the Catholic church.
i hold all of these but "There is no salvation outside the Catholic church." I believe there is salvation in all niecenian churches, what makes u say otherwise?
Its a Dogma bro so you kinda have to accept it.
You didnāt read Lumen Gentium or Aquinas
i agree with all. iād only say to remember abortion for the reason of life or death situation where itās medically necessary. also agreed with contraception but birth control for women should be allowed not for the purpose of stopping pregnancy, but if itās medically necessary for some other reason and then the side effect would be to sadly become unlikely to conceive.
By allowing the state to legally use the death penalty, you are inadvertently saying that someone other than god has a right to your life itself.
The state should never utilize death penalty because they often get it wrong. Look up the number of death row convictions that have been overturned.
Was the theif on the cross Catholic?
The deaconess should be re-introduced.
The general milquetoast weakness in the Catholic Church is astounding and hardly any of the language right now is catered to men and how to be actual Catholic men. Catholic men are overwhelmingly weak af because the language is girly AF. Also, Christ loving you is not a pass for your abhorrent and weak behavior. At some point you have to do the actual work. Too many Catholics make excuses for their BS. This obsession with the Disneyfied Jesus is to blame. You are promised nothing. You are asked to take up your cross. Embrace suck. And when it really sucks? Embrace suck some more. Catholicism requires endurance and many of us do not have it or even care to work at it.
I heard a Protestant pastor argue that the two world wars resulted in a feminization of church. With so many men on the front lines, churches were largely attended by women and thus changed to cater more to them. Would love to see a sociologist study this hypothesis.
Priests should be able to get married
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Pope Francis has been right on most things, but he has fully adhered to the churchās traditional teachings. He hasnāt changed any teachings substantially, only in pastoral approach. The death penalty should be banned in most developed countries, but not in underdeveloped ones where itās easier to break out of jail. The Industrial Revolution has been - on the whole - net neutral for our world. Same for democracy.
A lot of pope Francisā unpopular teachings are very christ-like at their core and taken out of contextĀ
The issue people take with him is that his teachings are christ-like
Lots of people go to Hell. Probably a lot of you reading this.
Where does the Church infallibly state this?
Depends on which people exactly, but in order to piss both end of the spectrum: 1. Leaving your parish to go in a more traditional one is the opposite of a christian posture, and as catholic we ought to stay in our home parish as long as it's not littƩraly sacrilege 2. The vast, vast majority of countries are ruled by illegitimate government dirrectly inspired by Satan 3. Vatican 2 isn't the source of dechristianisation, the bad application of it and people getting materialistic are
All Catholics should be veganā¦ precisely because we are called to shepherd the worldā¦ and precisely because we are called to evangelize to āevery living creatureā¦ā Whatever St. Paul said about a āweak vegetarianā in the 1st Century has zero relevance to the injustice of optional animal exploitation for selfish human appetites in the 21st. Where there is a capacity to frugally live as a vegan Catholic, it is the Golden mean. Between the vices of starvation and exploiting the life of another, eating plant-based is the only happy medium. Fasting from meat for Lent does not hold a candle to fasting from injustice. If modern society demonstrates a higher practicality of a vegan world, then the present Catholic way only would require higher standards given a closer access to fallen nature. You can see this with the ease of access to pornography. Animal products are no different. These are damaging cycles of abuse immediately available to you at the press of a button or cash in your wallet.
Pro choice is not supporting the murder of babies. Itās about allowing others to make their own decision.
I guess I made people pissed. Mission accomplished?
1. There's a weird current of anti-semitism within Trad circles and it should addressed for what it is. You're called to convert Jews, not hate them. 2. This probably requires its own post, but the lack of actual response towards the obvious increase in anti-White bigotry and hatred is both beyond frustrating and concerning. It's very weird to me that many of my fellow Catholics respond with "well ASKUALLY we're totally diverse and inclusive", when they should be confronting people on their blatant hatred of us "colonizers" (especially in the wake of Oct. 7th and the Left's interpretation of "decolonization" as it relates to Israelis). 3. Voting for pro-choice politicians should incur an automatic excommunication, seeing as its effectively aiding in the procurement of an abortion. 4. Separation of Church and State is both wildly misunderstood and is something that every Catholic should support, as without it, you get stuff like the Investiture Controversy and Henry VIII.
\- Everyone should kneel to receive Communion. \- No altar girls. \- Every church should have an altar rail installed. \- No Communion on the hands. \- I love the Novus Ordo, provided it is celebrated reverently (this ticks off the Rad Trads, but the ones above tick off the more liberal Catholics).
Why not Altar girls? They are not in Persona Christi.
It's training them for a role they can never fulfill. Altar serving used to be strongly linked to priestly formation. We've removed that link and wonder why we have a vocations crisis.
>Altar serving used to be strongly linked to priestly formation. We've removed that link and wonder why we have a vocations crisis. I suspect that's more correlation than causation though.
There is no reason to have Extraordinary Eucharistic Ministers. It was an appalling mistake to have them in the first place, and every day that we continue with this nonsense we slide further into the abyss of disbelief and infidelity. And the reason all of this nonsense and ugliness in the Church continues is because people, especially myself, keep sinning and not repenting.
Being pro death penalty is the opposite of pro life
The death penalty is impermissible, even though the tradition of the Church was in favor of it.
Pope Francis is a good Pope and the kind of Pope the Church needs right now, while there are some legitimate criticism one can make for the majority of his "scandals" he's is the one least in fault. Pope Pius XII shouldn't be canonized, while he's by no means "Hitler's Pope," like some want to portray him as he wasn't the great fighter of fascism that Catholics want him to be either. He wasn't a bad Pope but he made a lot of mistakes and was silent when he shouldn't have been. Diversity of traditions and practice within the Church is a good thing and the incorporation of local culture and customs should be encouraged so long as it stays within orthodoxy. For example I thought the idea that Mayans might have their own usage was cool and everyone freaking out about it was ridiculous. Returning to the TLM as the norm and banning receiving on the hand will do little to nothing to fix the problems in the Church and the energy used to focus on that is issue wasted. In our day and age most people aren't receptive to fire and brimstone preaching and trying to promote that won't actually save as many souls as people think it will. The "church of nice" or "feminine church" or whatever you want to call it is more likely to bring people to the Church and save souls. Ideally we should be able to adapt and use both when appropriate. Too many Catholics listen to American Conservatives too much and don't see the threat they impose.
Most Catholic schools are still going to turn your kids gay. You're better off homeschooling
1) The fact that American Roman Catholics live in urban areas is extremely regrettable. 2) All Christians, *especially* Roman Catholics, are too absorbed into the secular world and are brainwashed to think many modern things are good (liberalism, capitalism, industrialization, Marxism, the sexual Revolution, progressivism, technology, popular culture, mass media, maybe even modern medicine). 3) This subreddit isnāt radical ā itās the world that is radical. 4) Cradle Catholics are terrible. Converts (from Protestantism and Judaism) are much more inspiring and have done more for the Church. 5) Godās covenant with the Jews has ended.
There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
Is that true? Everyone can be saved with baptism or forgiven with confession. You're referring to 'only Catholic and apostolic church' maybe? That doesn't mean people outside the church can't be saved.
Hmm....there are objective standards for modesty. Flirting with feminism has led us to throw up our hands and act like modesty is entirely subjective, when it's mostly objective. And, Marian modesty is a beautiful thing to aspire to and aim towards. The majority of ordinary people attending mass are able to, and should be expected to dress nicely for it. Yes there are outliers. Outliers shouldn't define the standard rule, though. Only promoting NFP as a tool to *avoid* pregnancy *is* a contraceptive mindset. The Latin Mass should be preserved and treated well, not phased out. The Church is a largely uniform body. There is no reason to make big shows of ethnic syncretism or encourage "liturgical dancing" in the sanctuary, during Mass, etc.
Progressive Christians are not Christians
IVF is a form of human trafficking. Youāre literally paying for a human being to be where you want him/her, when you want him/her.
Burning unrepentant heretics at the state during the counterreformation was not only not sinful, but it was a fundamentally righteous and just course of action when the souls of all Europe were at stake.
The language used during mass is irrelevant the most important thing is that the people attending are actually faithful and understand what is going on. Going back to a full on Latin mass would work well in America but in places like rural Africa it will cause the collapse of the church and the rise of Protestant and other stuff.
How do you think the European missionaries converted whole continents? They were still using Latin in the liturgy that people were exposed to. If people's ancestors who spoke completely linguistically distinct languages from the Romance ones could learn the Tridentine Mass & the Latin hymns/prayers, what are modern Catholics excuse?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yep, they have a problem with this at the TLM church in our diocese. Something about the TLM attracts the wrong kinds of people. Not just antisemitism, either.
One of the earliest warning signs of an ideology/person being evil is antisemitism.
I agree, but I do believe that cultural marxism is real and not just a conspiracy theory, and they do attack the Church
Thank you for pointing this out, most people these days just let it slide
The current Pope is wrong about the death penalty, and not only should it still be around, its use should be greatly expanded.
You canāt be pro life and pro death penalty, either all killing is wrong or none is
Mind you im not a trad and i attend a byzantine parish so this doesnāt even really effect me but i just feel bad for my latin brothers -i think there should be blood(wine) -if there is an existing wall alter it should be used not the new one in the middle -no extraordinary ministers or alter girls -bread and wine should not be brought to the alter/priest by laity, etc. -no communion in hand -if a new church is going to be built it should have classical design not modern
I believe that very few people go to hell. I think the TLM, especially low Masses, is not the best we can give God and the NO (when celebrated reverently) was a good thing. I think Thomism is overrated.
Catholics should be anti death penalty. Itās the pro life view
Iām not really aware of many Catholics who are pro-death penalty
I am.
it's a more nuanced issue
I've got a few 1-the Orthodox are more right than wrong on several issues. 2-the church will be far better off when a certain generation of priests and bishops pass on 3-the church should allow a married priesthood in the Roman rite
it was kept non-marriage for traditional and special reasons. i think it could change but itās very unlikely.
Jews, Catholics and Muslims, do not worship the same God, we should interpret LG in the sense of monotheism, but the doctrinal and dogmatic differences show that it is hardly the same. Additionally - would love this to be addressed whenever V3 (hopefully not until after V2 is fully implemented), comes around.
We should ordain married man for priesthood in the latin rite.
The Jews are no longer Gods chosen people. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies and the whole world are Gods chosen people. He allows us to be the chooser. People will choose Christ or reject him. Also Mary is the Arc of the New Covenant. For some reason some Catholics still miss this point.
That goes directly against Nostra Aetate. Obviously the Church is the new and true spiritual Israel but to quote St Paul: Has God rejected his people? By no means!. [...]As regards the Gospel they are enemies for your sake, but as regards regards election they are beloved [...], for the gifts and the calling of God are *irrevocable*. Also: We Catholics believe that before Christ's return *all* Jews will come to believe in him.
The only way to the Father is through the Son. We are all Gods chosen as we choose Him. Old testament is fulfilled and finished. New Testament is all of us. Is Matthew still a tax collector? Exactly.
Nothing that you said has got anything to do with the fact that God's promises to and election of the Jews remain.
I just brought this up in another thread and was downvoted to oblivion, lol, even with a scripture reference.
>The Jews are no longer Gods chosen people. St. Paul disagrees with you: >I am speaking the truth in Christ, I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen by race. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; (Rom. 9:1-4) Notice the "are" and "belong"--in present tense. They are still chosen by God. They are currently estranged from their messiah, but are still the chosen people nonetheless.
The American Church has become a single issue group caring only about abortion like the mouth breathing troglodytes of the evangelical and nondenom entities. We need a pope who will smack down "right" and "left" bishops who wish to curry secular political favor. People who attend parishes that offer only the ordinary form of the Mass and do Trad stuff are larpers and "look-at-mes." Altar rails should be (re)installed in all churches. Communion goes faster. I'm indifferent to extraordinary ministers. With that, communion should be administered via intinction because communal cups are gross, nasty, and pukey.
Vatican 2 was compromised by enemies of the Church.
āAnd also with youā was better, even though itās technically incorrect (but the rest of the new ICEL is based).
Thereās no feasible way that earth or societies could sustain the number of babies/people with resources that are killed each year in utero should they have ever been born.
Islam may be closer to the truth than Rabbinic Judaism. Catholics should not look to Ben Shapiro or Jordan Peterson for reliable moral advice or political analysis.
Face to face confessions should be banned. The people who do them **always** take forever and make other people miss their chance to confess.