In the Gospel of John, the term "Jews" appears significantly more often than in the Synoptic Gospels — 66 times in John compared to 5 in Matthew, 6 in Mark, and 4 in Luke. In the Gospel of John, there are about 31 verses in which Jews are portrayed in a negative light, such as in John 8:42-56: > 42 Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love > me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, > but he sent me. > > 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my > word. > > 44 **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye > will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the > truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he > speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. > > 45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. > > 46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do > ye not believe me? > > 47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, > because **ye are not of God**. > > 48 Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that > thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil? > > 49 Jesus answered, I have not a devil; but I honour my Father, and > **ye do dishonour me**. > > 50 And I seek not mine own glory: there is one that seeketh and > judgeth. > > 51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall > never see death. > > 52 Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil. > Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my > saying, he shall never taste of death. > > 53 Art thou greater than our father Abraham, which is dead? and the > prophets are dead: whom makest thou thyself? > > 54 Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my > Father that honoureth me; **of whom ye say, that he is your God: 55 > Yet ye have not known him;** but I know him: and if I should say, I > know him not, I shall be a **liar like unto you**: but I know him, and > keep his saying. > > 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was > glad. The occurrences are detailed below: Note: If you edit the question, please keep the numbered list Matthew 1) Matthew 2:2 2) Matthew 27:11 3) Matthew 27:29 4) Matthew 27:37 5) Matthew 28:15 Mark 1) Mark 7:3 2) Mark 15:2 3) Mark 15:9 4) Mark 15:12 5) Mark 15:18 6) Mark 15:26 Luke 1) Luke 7:3 2) Luke 23:3 3) Luke 23:37 4) Luke 23:38 John Note: Negative verses are reproduced 1) John 1:19 2) John 2:6 3) John 2:13 4) John 2:18 5) John 2:20 6) John 3:1 7) John 3:25 8) John 4:9 9) John 4:22 10) John 5:1 11) John 5:10 12) John 5:15 13-n1) John 5:16 "And therefore did **the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him**, because he had done these things on the sabbath day" 14-n2) John 5:18 "Therefore **the Jews sought the more to kill him**, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God." 15) John 6:4 16-n3) John 6:41 "**The Jews then murmured at him**, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven." 17) John 6:52 18-n4) John 7:1 "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because **the Jews sought to kill him**." 19) John 7:2 20) John 7:11 21-n5) John 7:13 "Howbeit **no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.**" 22) John 7:15 23) John 7:35 24) John 8:22 25) John 8:31 26-n6-n11) John 8:42-48 "Jesus said unto them, **If God were your Father**, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. **Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.** He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, **ye believe me not**. Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, **why do ye not believe me?** He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because **ye are not of God**. Then **answered the Jews, and said unto him, Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?**" 27-n12) John 8:52 "**Then said the Jews unto him, Now we know that thou hast a devil.** Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and thou sayest, If a man keep my saying, he shall never taste of death." 28-n13) John 8:57-59 "Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. **Then took they up stones to cast at him**: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." 29-n14) John 9:18 "**But the Jews did not believe concerning him**, that he had been blind, and received his sight, until they called the parents of him that had received his sight." 30-n15) John 9:22 " These words spake his parents, **because they feared the Jew: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue**." 31) John 10:19 32) John 10:24 33-n16) John 10:31 "Then **the Jews took up stones again to stone him**." 34-n17) John 10:33 " **The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy**; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God." 35-n18) John 11:8 "His disciples say unto him, Master, **the Jews of late sought to stone thee**; and goest thou thither again?" 36) John 11:19 37) John 11:31 38) John 11:33 39) John 11:36 40) John 11:45 41-n19) John 11:53-54 " **Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews**; but went thence unto a country near to the wilderness, into a city called Ephraim, and there continued with his disciples." 42) John 11:55 43) John 12:9 44) John 12:11 45) John 13:33 46-n20) John 18:12 "**Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him**," 47-n21) John 18:14 "Now Caiaphas was he, **which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people**." 48) John 18:20 49-n22) John 18:31 "Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. **The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death**:" 50) John 18:33 51-n23) John 18:35 "Pilate answered, **Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me**: what hast thou done?" 52-n24) John 18:36 "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, **then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews**: but now is my kingdom not from hence." 53-54-n25) John 18:38-40 "Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, **he went out again unto the Jews**, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. But ye have a custom, that **I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews?** **Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas**. Now Barabbas was a robber." 55) John 19:3 56-n26) John 19:7 "**The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die**, because he made himself the Son of God." 57-n27) John 19:12 "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: **but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend**: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar." 58) John 19:14 59) John 19:19 60) John 19:20 61-n28) John 19:21 "**Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews**." 62-n29) John 19:31 "**The Jews therefore**, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) **besought Pilate that their legs might be broken**, and that they might be taken away." 63-n30) John 19:38 "**And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews**, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus." 64) John 19:40 65) John 19:42 66-n31) John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when **the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews**, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

Cardinal Robert Prevost was made Pope Leo XIV today. He is the first Augustinian to become Pope as Pope Francis was the first Jesuit. It would seem that someone who accepted the order even prior to ordination would be very formed in some ethos and I don't know a whole lot about Augustinians other than I doubt the order was founded by St. Augustine and that Martin Luther was one. So what are the qualities might a young Robert Prevost have found in the Augustinian order that drew him to it which he might carry into his papacy?

I see Eastern Orthodox keyboard warriors commonly posting memes, bite size apologetics and propaganda against Catholicism which make some variation on the claim "4 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Eastern Orthodoxy. You should too". I was wondering how much veracity is behind this claim. I was under the impression that the Patriarch of Alexandria wasn't even in communion with the Eastern Orthodox church at all. I thought he was a Copt and a member of the Oriental Orthodox communion instead? Likewise for Jerusalem and Antioch. I thought that the only Patriarch of the original Pentarchy that is an actual Eastern Orthodox is the Patriarch of Constantinople? My understanding is that 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Catholicism, 1 out of 5 Patriarchs chooses Eastern Orthodoxy, and 3 out of 5 Patriarchs choose Oriental Orthodoxy. Please help me understand this situation further?

One minute Paul says anyone who tries to earn their way to heaven by obeying the law will die. An then he goes on to say don't obey the desires of your sinful nature. OK, I'm confused. Do we put "faith" in Jesus, or do we "work" on trying to stop sinning? Which one? >Galatians 2:16: ". . . by the works of the law no one will be justified" (NLT). > >Galatians 5:18: ". . . but when you are directed by the Spirit, you are not under obligation to the law of Moses" (NLT). Vs >Galatians 5:19-21: ". . . when you follow the results of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immortality, impurity, lustful pleasure, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, 21 envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God" (NLT). Its like he tells us it's impossible to obey the law because we are sinners through and through. Therefore put faith in Christ who died for those sins and love one another. But then, he says don't sin, or you won't inherit the kingdom of God. I'm confused.

I just wanted to get a quick update on Church History. I have heard this debate time and time again, so I just want to see if this platform can give me an answer. Which church split of first? Did the Catholics split away from the Eastern Orthodox? OR did the Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholics?

N.b.: I originally posted this question in the Philosophy stack, but then realized it was more appropriate, and might get more informed answers, here. In a famous article, Anscombe castigates "Modern Moral Philosophy" (including but not limited to consequentialism) as "quite incompatible with the Hebrew-Christian ethic. For **it has been characteristic of that ethic to teach that there are certain things forbidden whatever consequences threaten, such as: choosing to kill the innocent for any purpose, however good; vicarious punishment**...," which in contrast consequentialists can sometimes allow for sufficiently good consequences. (p.10) Many other Christian apologists make similar claims. Yet I have also seen many Christian apologists--and often the same ones--bend over backwards to defend, e.g., the drowning of babies in the Biblical flood, the slaughter of the Canaanite civilian population after a war victory, etc., as well as vicarious punishment: of the Egyptian first-born, of children "to the third and fourth generation" (Num 14:18), etc. Even Christians who do not take these stories literally at least generally say that they reveal something about the character of God and morality, and so have to excuse them away--giving special reasons (consequentialist or otherwise) for why these cases of innocent-killing and vicarious punishment are justified. So my question is, **is Anscombe's quoted claim simply and quite obviously wrong, or can something be said in its defense?** The only thing I sometimes see apologists say about this is that these moral obligations only apply to humans, not to God, though this is odd if God is supposed to be morally good. But even for God, these actions are often excused on account of being part of his "plan," i.e., because in some way (perhaps unknowable to us) these will lead to good consequences. I am not asking whether any of these arguments are plausible, but simply whether they /exist/ and fit Anscombe's description of what Christian ethics supposedly does not do. If so, then these are not innovations of "modern moral philosophy" but old hat strategies which Christian moralists have been using for centuries. So is she just the pot calling the kettle black? Or does she really have a point in saying that there is something novel about modern consequentialist morality which is not present in the history of Christian apologetics? Note that I am well aware that Christian moralists have not historically espoused consequentialism as a general theory, at least before William Paley. But espousing this theory is different from making occasional consequentialist arguments in specific cases. It is also possible that the modern apologists I read giving such arguments are in fact a novelty, and that historical theologians didn't do this, so that perhaps Anscombe's criticism should be extended to "Modern Moral Theology" insofar as she might think it has been infected by a consequentialist thinking anathema to Christian tradition. This is an interesting question; did Augustine, Aquinas, etc., *never* make consequentialist arguments for God's doing or commanding such things? But again, it's not my full question, for Anscombe is claiming that Christians *never* gave justifications for ever doing these things, consequentialist or otherwise. But this seems false, for "I am God," or "I have been commanded by God to do/allow these things" apparently *was* such a justification in some such cases.

Jesus was not a pacifist, Jesus taught us to forego retaliation for any offense. I checked the history of the Catholic Church and discovered that they established a military force called the Order of the Templars, was this justified Biblically according to Catholics?

What are the requirements according to Vaticanologists to be considered papabile? If in fact such requirements actually exist. [Papabile](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papabile) is an unofficial term, first coined by Vaticanologists for someone is thought to be a possible candidate to be elected pope. I do not limit this question to Vaticanologists alone, but to all other Church officials or theologians who take into account the possibility of naming someone papabile seriously and gives reasons for doing so, especially now that the Holy See is in a moment of ***Sede Vacante***.

Eusebius in his *Historia Ecclesiastica 3.39.15* writes about Papias claiming Mark, an attendant of Peter, had written an account about Jesus: > And the elder would say this: Mark, who had become the interpreter of > Peter, wrote accurately, yet not in order, as many things as he > remembered of the things either said or done by the Lord. For he > neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, > who would make the teachings to the needs, but not making them as an > ordering together of the lordly oracles, so that Mark did not sin > having thus written certain things as he remembered them. For he made > one provision, to leave out nothing of the things that he heard or > falsify anything in them. > > Και τουθ ο πρεσβυτερος ελεγεν· Μαρκος μεν ερμηνευτης Πετρου γενομενος, > οσα εμνημονευσεν ακριβως εγραψεν, ου μεντοι ταξει, τα υπο του κυριου η > λεχθεντα η πραχθεντα. ουτε γαρ ηκουσεν του κυριου ουτε παρηκολουθησεν > αυτω, υστερον δε, ως εφην, Πετρω, ος προς τας χρειας εποιειτο τας > διδασκαλιας, αλλ ουχ ωσπερ συνταξιν των κυριακων ποιουμενος λογιων, > ωστε ουδεν ημαρτεν Μαρκος ουτως ενια γραψας ως απεμνημοσευσεν. ενος > γαρ εποιησατο προνοιαν, του μηδεν ων ηκουσεν παραλιπειν η ψευσασθαι τι > εν αυτοις. Could the phrase ου μεντοι ταξει refer to the concept of a rhetorical arrangement that is not in order, in that it skips over major sections of the life and ministry of Jesus? There are two references in the New Testament that are different, yet similar: > Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account > of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the > beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them > down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated > everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in > orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], most excellent Theophilus; so that you > might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. (Luke 1.1-4) > > But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them > in orderly sequence [καθεξῆς], saying.... (Acts 11.4) The early second century literary critic Lucian in his book, *How to Write History* uses ταξει in a broad sense when he writes: > As to the facts themselves, [the historian] should not assemble them > at random, but only after much laborious and painstaking > investigation. He should for preference be an eyewitness, but, if not, > listen to those who tell the more impartial story, those whom one > would suppose least likely to subtract from the facts or add to them > out of favor or malice. When this happens let him show shrewdness and > skill in putting together the more credible story. When he has > collected all or most of the facts, let him first make them into a > series of notes, a body of material as yet with no beauty or > continuity. Then, after arranging them into order [τάξιν], let him > give it beauty and enhance it with the charms of expression, figure, > and rhythm. (47-48) Of course, it is possible that Papias is making reference to an early version of Mark's Gospel. If so, it might be similar to how Tertullian in his work *Against Marcion* writes: > Nothing I have previously written against Marcion is any longer my > concern. I am embarking upon a new work to replace an old one. My > first edition [primum opusculum], too hurriedly produced, I afterwards > withdrew, substituting a fuller [*pleniore*] treatment. This also, > before enough copies [*exemplariis*] had been made, was stolen from me > by a person, at that time a Christian but afterwards an apostate, who > chanced to have copied out some extracts very incorrectly > [*mendosissime*], and shewed them to a group of people. Hence the need > for correction [*emendationis necessitas facta est*]. The opportunity > provided by this revision has moved me to make some additions. Thus > this written work, a third succeeding a second, and instead of third > from now on the first, needs to begin by reporting the demise of the > work it supersedes, so that no one may be perplexed if in one place or > another he comes across varying forms of it [*varietas eius*]. > (1.1.1-2) The target audience of Mark's Gospel appears to be Cæsar's equites . So, an abridged version of the life and ministry of Jesus might have deliberately been crafted to leave out certain events for rhetorical purposes such as memory retention, etc. For example, in the Fragments attributed to Clement of Alexandria it states (emphasis added): > Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel > at Rome before some of **Cæsar's equites**, and adduced many testimonies > to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to > memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely > what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be > recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the > Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews. So, what is a survey of the various views that Christians related to the question of what did Papias mean when he wrote how Mark did not write "in order" about what Jesus said or did?

I remember being taught in an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist Church when I was in middle school that Satan took one third of the angels in heaven with him after being cast out of God's presence for rebellion. The only biblical reference I can locate that might be construed as support for this belief is **Revelation 12:4**: >Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. (NIV) I'm sure there are other scriptures that are commonly used in conjunction with this one to justify the belief, but I can't find any that seem to make sense in context, or that address the topic specifically. After discussing this and other issues regarding angels with conservative Baptist friends of mine, I found that some of them base a significant portion of their beliefs about angels, the nephilim, and other supernatural activity and beings on the Book of Enoch, but they always emphasized that they do not view Enoch as canon and as having much less authority than the scriptures. How do Baptists who hold this position defend it using canonical scripture? Also, are there any significant denominations or popular preachers who have maintained this belief?

Did early Christian writers teach apostolic succession or reject it? How do their teachings on this topic compare with contemporary and significant historical understandings of apostolic succession?

In order to prevent electromagnetic waves from entering or leaving the Sistine Chapel, has a Faraday cage been installed around it?

Recently, a good friend of mine posed the question: > What (or who) is Satan and how do we know? I answered him, saying that Satan is an evil angel because this is what I've been taught since I was a child. However, after further investigation (meaning looking through relevant portions of the Bible) I could not justify my claim. In fact, the only form that Satan is described as having, in my investigation, is the form of a dragon. So, that's my question: What is the form of Satan? Is he/it a dragon, human, angel, something else, or is his/its form indeterminate? Please use scripture to support your answer, and thank you.

Is acting as if God exist while not actually believing that God exists is functionally identical or is that a sacrilege? To rephrase: is it feasible/possible/morally right to stick one finger in to test the waters or you accept Christianity in it's entirety and there is no middle ground? The reason I'm asking is that from the agnostic fence I've been sitting for the last 20-30 years of my life it seems that the satanic crowd have become increasingly active in the last decade or so and I want to have nothing in common with the Anton le Vei wannabees so am pondering my options spiritually-wise.

We Christians say the devil is responsible for our sins and temptations. However, I don't see how this can coexist with scientific knowledge. Specifically, we know that life has adapted over time to surviving and reproducing as much as possible (after all, that is what causes more similar lifeforms to arise - it's called natural selection). This includes hormonal systems in the brain that create a positive response to things like reproduction (sex) or eating (gluttony), along with other behaviors like the challenging of authority, or the seeking of (evil) novelties to carry out, which positively impact the species' prosperity. However, this also extends to "rational" (non-chemical) sins as well. In the end, every lie, every insult and even every murder comes from an underlying reasoning (in the latter case, it comes from a reasoning which has been heavily corrupted by the conditions in which one has developed, but the point still holds). Bearing in mind all this, how can we say that there is an external influence "creating" these sins and temptations when it is the internal systems of the brain that are? Saying so would be like saying that demons are responsible for our survival, or like saying that they created these systems in the first place (which, inevitable as they are due to the conditions of the Earth, would imply that they would have created the Earth itself!) Where does this reasoning go wrong?

St. Josemaria Escriva, the founder of *Opus Dei*, once said "God in his providence has two ways of blessing marriages: one by giving them children; and the other, sometimes, because he loves them so much, by not giving them children. I don’t know which is the better blessing." One [web article](https://surprisedbymarriage.com/2020/09/08/to-the-small-catholic-families-god-loves-you-too/) quotes this. I also read somewhere that Scott Hahn was quoting St. Josemaria Escriva saying this in his book on his journey with *Opus Dei*, which I put on hold at my local library, but don't have in my hands yet. I am trying to track down the origin of this quote. Was it something the Saint wrote and published? Was it part of a speech or homily? Was it something he just said off the cuff that someone happened to write down? If no one here knows, I will answer the question once I get Hahn's book in my hands and can track the source down.

Scriptures have clear evidence that God has already chosen some individuals for salvation. Here are some references... "When the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord; and **as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.**" (Acts 13:48) "And the Lord said to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid any longer, but go on speaking and do not be silent; for I am with you, and no man will attack you in order to harm you, **for I have many people in this city**.” (Acts 18:9-10) "For those whom He foreknew, **He also predestined** to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified." (Romans 8:29-30) The above verses provide us ample evidence that God in His sovereignty chooses some individuals for salvation. Them He justifies and glorifies. Then we also see in the Scriptures... "And He said to them, “Go into all the world and **preach the gospel to all creation.** The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned." (Mark 16:15-16) “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that **everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.**" (John 3:16) According to the reformed theology how can the above both sets of verses be reconciled?

I live in a place where I can't find anyone to baptize me. Can I become a Christian on my own?

In John 8:1-11, Jesus forgives the women who was taken in adultery, but critical scholars, such as Dr. Bart Erhman, claim that no early or reliable manuscripts contain John 8:1-11, and that, thus, it was probably a later addition. How would you respond to this claim? I have included quotes from Erhman below: > "The story of the woman caught in adultery is not found in the > earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the Gospel of John, nor in > many of the important versions of the text... It appears to have been > added later, perhaps to fill in a gap in the narrative." (Misquoting Jesus) > > "The story, even though it may have been part of the oral tradition, > is not originally part of the Gospel of John, but rather was added > later by a scribe, perhaps because the story was well known in > Christian tradition and fit well with the themes of the Gospel." (The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) > > "The story was eventually included in some versions of the Gospel, > likely because it was seen as a powerful teaching of Jesus’ mercy, but > its late inclusion suggests it was not part of the original Gospel." (A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings)

I noticed many questions about how to figure out or what exactly constitutes an infallible statement from the Pope of the Catholic Church. Since it is infallible Dogma within the Catholic church to believe that the Pope can make these infallible *ex Cathedra* statements on matters of faith, there must be a single agreed upon list of these statements... but I cannot seem to find one. The Vatican’s website or Denzinger’s *Sources of Catholic Dogma* compile key papal teachings, but they don’t explicitly label statements as *ex cathedra*... Are these statements just so rare that there are literally only 2 (making my search kinda silly?): 1. The Immaculate Conception (Pope Pius IX, *Ineffabilis Deus*, 1854), declaring that Mary was conceived free from original sin. 2. The Assumption of Mary (Pope Pius XII, *Munificentissimus Deus*, 1950), declaring that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven. But... considering things like Vatican II which changed Mass significantly... or Pope John Paul II’s *Ordinatio Sacerdotalis* (1994) on the male-only priesthood (which feels like just a reconfirmation of something that had existed for 1900ish years)... I'm not trying to poke holes in the concept of Papal infallibility, but is there really no list of infallible statements, if Catholics must believe in this Dogma?