From the Catechism of Pope St. John Paul the Great: > §2521 Purity requires *modesty*, an integral part of temperance. Modesty protects the intimate center of the person. It means refusing to unveil what should remain hidden. It is ordered to chastity to whose sensitivity it bears witness. It guides how one looks at others and behaves toward them in conformity with the dignity of persons and their solidarity. But according to playwright Alan Bennett, "All modesty is false modesty; otherwise, it wouldn't be called modesty". This paradoxicality can be seen in the self-refuting nature of the sentence "I am humble". How would a Catholic moral theologian justify modesty in light of its paradoxicality?

I'm looking for a comparable Protestant teaching, and hopefully the scriptural reference it's based on, for this point within the Catholic catechism. > The desire for God is written in the human heart, because man is created by God and for God; and God never ceases to draw man to himself. [CCC, n. 1](http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c1.htm)

I don't understand what the works that accompany faith are for Catholics to be saved. Are they: 1) Keeping the Moral Law 2) Doing good deeds (i.e. charity work) 3) Both If it is both, what good deeds do we need to do? And how often do we need to do them to remain in a state of grace? (Matthew 25 is concerning).

I'm listening and following compline that was livestreamed here but the final Marian antiphon at the end doesn't seem to the prescribed Marian antiphon in my Monastic Diurnal. Can someone explain what they are singing here? According to my Monastic Diurnal, it says *From Feb 2, even if the Feast of Purification has been transferred, through Wed of Holy Week*: the Antiphon is Ave, Regina caelorum. https://kerkdienstgemist.nl/stations/1972/events/recording/174223800001972

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SECOND EDITION > 103: For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she **venerates the Lord's Body**. She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and Christ's Body.

I think the following was spoken Ex Cathedra: > “The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches > that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only > pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share > in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was > prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are > joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this > ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can > profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone > can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, > their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian > soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, > even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, > unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic > Church.” (Council of Florence--Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate > Domino, 1441.) So as far as 600 years ago, this was considered an infallible statement by Catholics, correct? Here is another one from 700 years ago: > “With Faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, > holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and > simply confess this Church outside of which there is no salvation nor > remission of sin… Furthermore, we declare, say, define, and proclaim > to every human creature that they by absolute necessity for salvation > are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff.” (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam > Sanctam, Nov. 18, 1302) Why then today do Catholics seem to change their mind about it? There is indeed confusion about what Pope Francis meant about atheists . This answer on Stack Exchange states that there are other ways outside of the sacraments and union with the Catholic Church to get to heaven . To be fair, it does contradict paragraphs 1257-1261 of the Catholic Catechism. So how does the Catholic Church regard these Ex Cathedra pronouncements which were clearly aimed at people trying to break away? Now that we have Protestantism, they seem to have mellowed a bit. But I would like to get a more in depth answer that explains 1. How *Ex Cathedra* statements seem to be disregarded 2. How Catholics actually squared these statements in the first place with the teachings in the Cathechism that seem to teach the exact opposite

There is an idea in Judaism that there is/was a messiah for every generation. I have heard some people muse that it was Christ in the Garden, and so I float the idea that during the timeline in which a Messiah was needed, is it possible that Christ has come before, either as: - Just an observer. - A messiah not realized. - A messiah who failed his initial goal. And by "Possible" I mean, does the Catholic Catechism explicitly or implicitly (but apodictically) rules these ideas out as blasphemous or heretical?

We know from the Bible that fornication is a sin: > **Acts 15:20** But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. > > **1st Corinthians 6:18** Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. > > **1st Corinthians 7:2** Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. > > **1st Thessalonians 4:3** For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: At present, the Catholic Church believes that [premarital sex is fornication](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2353) : > 2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young. But has this always been the case? According to [this answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/7687/62012) : > Fornication has changed its meaning since 1611, so reading its definition in a modern English dictionary does little good. In 1611, fornication meant prostitution (as abundantly proven ad infinitum on the "goldenrule" website) and was a perfect translation of "porneia", which is the activity of porné, or prostitutes. So a key question here is how has the word fornication changed its meaning in the course of history. Is there any evidence to support the theory that perhaps at some point in its history, fornication did not mean premarital sex for the Catholic Church?

For Catholics, is Sunday observance necessary for salvation? Is Sunday observed in the same way as the Sabbath was observed, or is there a difference? Additionally, what about the observance of the day and the Eucharist? Is it mandatory to attend Mass *and* receive the Eucharist? If possible, I would like to know about Catholic documents or catechisms that define this. Thank you!

The Catholic [Catechism #847](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_9/paragraph_3_the_church_is_one,_holy,_catholic,_and_apostolic.html) gives exception to the (ordinary) rule of need for baptism for salvation. This extraordinary means is found outside the visible church, in the invisible church in righteousness through conscience, while being ignorant of the direct revelation of God (cf [Rom 2:6-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+2&version=NABRE)) . Thus, the unevangelised and ill-evangelised may typically fall under it. > *Catechism #847*: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. This development from Augustine has been reportedly credited to Aquinas 13th century who talked about "baptism of desire" where someone who desired baptism but died before receiving it could be saved by their desire and repentance; Council of Trent (1545–1563) and Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). [Pelagianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism) is defined by the denial of [Augustinian Original sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence) , that man has free will to achieve perfection, original sin did not taint human nature. The Catholicism also rejects the tainted nature of man due to original sin. The essential characteristic for salvation in Pelagianism is defined by righteousness, rather than religion or baptism/sacrament. It is best described as Synergism, which rejects Monergism with respect to salvation. The difference between the Catholic and Pelagian view maybe seen in the language and perspective, where Catholics may use the term grace or mercy to be the cause of salvation, whereas Pelagius would call it justice. The question is how do Catholic scholars differentiate it with Pelagianism? Is the difference merely of the *initiation* of the salvation process? Is it right to call Catholic view Pelagianism, except for the initiation? Semi-Pelagianism was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Orange in 529 CE, which emphasized that the *initiative* for salvation lies with God alone, and that human beings cannot take the first step toward God without divine grace.

For example, if no Mass were celebrated worldwide this Sunday, what would happen? Is there any teaching in Catholicism about this? It doesn't necessarily have to be on a Sunday; it could be on a Friday, for instance. Thank you, I hope you can help me. Hail Mary!

Looking for some guidance from Catholic theologians or people well familiar with Catholic theology. Is is okay to say, that someone **"must always wear their brown scapular"** in order to achieve some desired spiritual end? Even if this requirement is not on its own, but as part of a number of other well established practices? For example, "In order to bring the Triumph of Immaculate Heart, one must pray the rosary, consecrate one's life to Mary .... and **always wear their brown scapular** as a sign of this consecration"

In the Catholic Church, we believe that Jesus Christ is present -- body, blood, soul and divinity -- in the Holy Eucharist (Blessed Sacrament/Blessed Host). I would like to know if it is only the second person of the Holy Trinity (God the Son) who is in the Blessed Sacrament or all three persons (God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit) are in it.

I was recently reading the Catechism and came across paragraph 915, which has left me with some questions. It is the first sentence of 915 that's bothering me. It says: "Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple." What exactly does that mean? I know we are all meant to live in the spirit of the evangelical counsels, but I thought the evangelical counsels proper were for those in the consecrated life. Furthermore, 915 doesn't say Christ proposes the *spirit* of the evangelical counsels, it says Christ proposes **THE** evangelical counsels. Any information would be appreciated!

I actually find the *Roman Catechism* much more interesting to read than the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* (CCC) we have nowadays. The CCC is actually less easy to read than the *Roman Catechism* for me. The CCC was not written for people like me. It even frustrates me at time. The Roman Catechism does not frustrate me. What status does the *Roman Catechism* have nowadays? Should we read it?

I am reading *An exorcist tells his story*, and in it the author discusses a prayer by Pope Leo XIII: > St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen. So the pope here is praying for God to thrust Satan into hell, but why? Wouldn't this demand go against God's will, who in fact allows Satan to roam and have certain influence?

**I understand** that this question is touchy, and I myself wanted to break a hole through my wall when I heard what the Pope said, I have calmed down by God's grace. And I realize that traditionalists, like Church Militant have in a certain sense harmonized everything and calmed the storm. Although other traditionalists like akaCatholic are more reluctant to give the Pope a pass, mind you all of these are indeed traditionalists and not sedevacantists schismatics. **This question is** frankly aimed at Pope Francis more than his revision of the canon, because it seems to me that his perpetual and almost ridiculous record of clumsiness in wording is God's way of restricting him from leading the Church into heresy. I hope this question can raise more awareness and that there will be an adequate answer for this site. **The questions are as follows:** - Is Pope Francis' revision of canon 2267, in view of Trent, a development of doctrine or a change/evolution of doctrine? - Is the revision a prudential judgment or an absolute moral judgment? (This ties in with the first part of my question above, heterodoxy cannot be infallible) - Hypothetically speaking, if the Ordinary Magesterium (fallible) CLEARLY errs, can the clergy or the laymen resist the new teaching in appealing to the Church's tradition? PS: I will not quote or consider the revision of Pope St. John Paul ll as to if Pope Francis' revision is a logical continuity to it because that question has already been dealt with , this question here focuses on the continuity in view of Trent. Naturally if Pope St. John Paul ll and Pope Francis are harmonized, then it only remains to see if both of their teachings can be harmonized with the Church's tradition. **ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:** **The Traditional Catholic "atmosphere" around the Death Penalty is showcased in the following quotes(be indulgent, thank you):** > “The same divine authority that forbids the killing of a human being > establishes certain exceptions, as when God authorizes killing by a > general law or when He gives an explicit commission to an individual > for a limited time. The agent who executes the killing does not commit > homicide; he is an instrument as is the sword with which he cuts. > Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, ‘Thou shalt > not kill’ to wage war at God’s bidding, or for the representatives of > public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that > is, the will of the most just reason.” – (St. Augustine, The City of > God, Book 1, chapter 21) > > ----- > > It is written: “Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live” (Ex. 22:18); > and: “In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land” (Ps. > 100:8). …Every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, > wherefore every part exists naturally for the sake of the whole. For > this reason we see that if the health of the whole human body demands > the excision of a member, because it became putrid or infectious to > the other members, it would be both praiseworthy and healthful to have > it cut away. Now every individual person is related to the entire > society as a part to the whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and > infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is > praiseworthy and healthful that he be killed in order to safeguard the > common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Cor. > 5:6). – (St. Thomas, Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 2) > > ----- > > “It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the > magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who > carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should > we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, > therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the > discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s > authority.” (Pope Innocent 1, Epist. 6, C. 3. 8, ad Exsuperium, > Episcopum Tolosanum, 20 February 405, PL 20,495) > > ----- > > Condemned as an error: “That heretics be burned is against the will of > the Spirit.” – Pope Leo X, Exsurge Domine (1520) **CRUCIAL INFORMATION:** **New Teaching on the Death Penalty (2018)** > 2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate > response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit > extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. > > Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of > the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious > crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the > significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more > effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the > due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively > deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. > > Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that > "the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the > inviolability and dignity of the person,"[1] and she works with > determination for its abolition worldwide. > > _______________________ > > [1] Francis, Address to Participants in the Meeting organized by the > Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization, 11 > October 2017: L'Osservatore Romano, 13 October 2017, 5. **Oldest Teaching on the Death Penalty (1556)** > Catechism of the Council of Trent > > The power of life and death is permitted to certain civil magistrates > because theirs is the responsibility under law to punish the guilty > and protect the innocent. Far from being guilty of breaking this > commandment [Thy shall not kill], such an execution of justice is > precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to > protect and foster human life. This purpose is fulfilled when the > legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty > lives of those who have taken innocent lives. > > In the Psalms we find a vindication of this right: “Morning by morning > I will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers > from the city of the Lord” (Ps. 101:8). > > (Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent, 1566, Part III, 5, n. 4)

The Catechism says: > God is in no way, directly or indirectly, the cause of moral evil. He permits it, however, because he respects the freedom of his creatures and, mysteriously, knows how to derive good from it: For almighty God... because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself. > > [CCC 311](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/311.htm) > In time we can discover that God in his almighty providence can bring a good from the consequences of an evil, even a moral evil, caused by his creatures... > > [CCC 312](http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/312.htm) But the principle of double effect teaches that it is not permissible to take a good through a bad effect. So how can God be allowed to deliberately take a good through an evil?

I understand that the catechism of the Catholic church is the authoritative teaching of the ordinaries of the church, and ultimately that of the Pope. However, it is a complex and voluminous body of statements, so inevitably I can see how some persons might find arguments to one thing or another in it. I am wondering what the doctrinal position is with regards to dissent from the catechism on minor points. In the English version of the current catechism, the prologue only says that the catechism serves as a "reference" for teaching and does not make clear if it is sinful (if at all) to dissent. For example, in the catechism it teaches the (Old Testament) commandment to honor one's father and mother, and concludes that it is a grave sin to fail to do so (thus preventing Communion). However, this commandment (which is not even a commandment of the Covenant) is contradicted by both the statements and actions of Jesus who said, "I have come to set a man against his father" (Matthew 10:35) and furthermore when his own mother came to see Him, he said "Who is My mother, and who are My brothers?" Pointing to His disciples, He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers." (Matthew 12:48). So, on this basis one could argue that is cannot be a grave sin (among Christians) to dishonor a parent, since Jesus Himself did so. [*Please do not start an argument about this; the question is not about this point and it is just given as a hypothetical example of minor dissent.*] What is the position of the Catholic Church on this kind of reasoned dissent? My general impression is that if the dissent is specious or obviously just convenient, then the Church considers it invalid and the dissenter to be unqualified for Communion if they commit the sin in question, but if the dissent is reasoned and not self-interested then it is tolerated, and the parishioner can still receive communion. However, it is not really clear to me if this is the case or not. Note that I am only asking about dissent on minor points, like the long list of grave and venial sins (of which there are dozens if not hundreds), not on major points such as the Credo and the Sacraments, which obviously cannot be dissented from without losing access to Communion.

I was thinking about [the amendments to the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty](Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes): > Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption. and it seems like this is a much less universal teaching. It works where "more effective systems of detention have been developed". My wife's cousin and her husband were missionaries in Malawi, a fairly Christianized African country unencumbered with the prison industrial complex of modern nations, where they witnessed an mob execution over a presumed goat theft. Now, that doesn't seem like justice, and isn't the standard to compare a western system of retributive or restorative justice against, but it does make me wonder if social teachings like the recent change to the death penalty (which prior to it had been understood to only accept the death penalty where society couldn't otherwise protect itself from the reckless mayhem of the criminal) and the ones Pope Francis issued in Laudato Si concerning fake news and internet trolls are really only applicable to a subset of Catholics or are they really universal principles? Does the Catholic Church ever specifically say that some principles apply to people in certain situations (i.e. stable Western Democracies) or are all the teachings meant to be universal?