**What would Catholics have in a religious bug out kit in their homes if the events that the three days of darkness actually becomes real, as expressed by several Catholic mystics?** I am very much into the Great Outdoors, so I always have an [EDC kit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyday_carry) with me when I am out camping or hiking in the wilderness. This has inspired me to ask this question here as a sort of Catholic EDC kit for those Catholics that are more traditional minded or even very Marian minded Catholics. Catholic Stigmatists and Mystics like Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769—1837) have spoken about the three days of darks that will befall mankind as something that will inevitably happen to the human race. What do Catholic saints, mystics and stigmatists recommend that the faithful keep on hand in their homes in the event that the three days of darkness actually becomes a reality. Any other things that the faithful must do in order to remain as safe as possible during these days are also welcome.

In the Catholic Church there are ways of hearing Confessions that are not "face to face" and are even very anonymous. Canon law 964 in the Latin Church states: > §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. > > §2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely. > > §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause. Many people go to Confession behind a a fixed grate in a confessional and without going to a specific Confessor one has. I have always found that weird, ie the idea of not going to a Confessor for the Sacrament of Confession. "§3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause." sounds a bit strange to me as I always thought that one should try to go to a specific Confessor and perhaps even confess after session with spiritual direction. Now, it seems that the norm is not like that at all. **What does the Catholic Church actually say about the idea that we should have a specific Confessor?**

Perhaps the title could be rephrased, but I don't know a better way to explain my question except in terms of what I've learned in Math and Computer Science. Sometime back I watched some videos from an Orthodox catechism course. During the first lesson of the course, the participants were asked to accept the authority of the church. All subsequent lessons would be based on the participants having accepted the authority of the church to interpret scripture etc for them. I encountered a Protestant sect. They have some unique positions on some biblical issues. What struck me most was that they too claimed that their leadership were the only ones allowed to interpret scripture. What really got me is that instead of making the authority of their leadership the first issue presented to potential members on the first day of their study course, the sect waited till the last day to bring this issue up. Am I fussing over petty things? Because it seems dishonest for people to approach me on the street or elsewhere and tell me "the bible says X" when we've not agreed on a framework for biblical interpretation.

In a recently posted article on St. John Henry Newman (See: [*St. John Henry Newman's Elevation as Doctor of the Church Seen as a Gift for Our Times*](https://www.ncregister.com/news/pentin-newman-doctor-providential)) , Fr. [Ignatius] Harrison who commented on five key teachings of the Saint only briefly addresses Newman's thoughts on the importance of the laity and their role in the Church: "that the laity is not supplementary' but crucial to the very foundation of the Church, and that he wanted an informed, and well-educated laity for the Church's mission.'" QUESTION: Can anyone expand in more detail St. John Henry Newman's teaching on the importance of the laity and their role in the Catholic Church? Primary references are appreciated. Thank you.

*I am aware of [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28431/do-the-catholic-church-ex-cathedra-pronouncements-about-necessity-of-catholicism/28433#28433) previous question where the discussion centered on statements of Pope Francis and the catechism but that is not my interest here. [This](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/has-the-church-stated-any-advantages-or-reasoning-or-prompting-to-re-formulating/30899#30899) question also asks about the reasoning behind these changes but that is also not my question.* From what I understand about Catholic teaching, it is not possible for infallible teachings, either from a pope or an ecumenical council, to contradict each other. However, there seems to be a clear incompatibility between medieval Catholic doctrine and that of Vatican II around the question of salvation outside the church: [Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam (1302)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) > Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm) > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. Contrast this with two documents from Vatican II in 1964: [Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) > It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) > But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. To me it seems fairly clear that the "schismatics" from the council of Florence would correspond to the "separated churches and communities" from Vatican II. Unam Sanctam makes even clearer that the intent of the earlier documents is that "salvation outside the church" does mean communion with the Roman Pontiff, despite Vatican II's discussion of separated communities and Muslims. Admittedly I do not understand the intricacies of Catholic thought on many matters so my question is: How can all of these documents be read together consistently within a Catholic framework? In particular I'm interested in how this can be consistent with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and papal infallibility.

William of Tocco, O.P., mentions in ch. 5 of his biography of St. Thomas Aquinas (pp. 33-4) that: >once he [St. Thomas] had reached the age of five, they sent him to the [Benedictine] monastery of Monte Cassino in the arms of his nurse. […] Very soon, this child began to receive his education in the monastery under the diligent instruction of a master to whom he showed clear signs of his future advancement. Dom Delatte's commentary on *St. Benedict's Rule* ch. 59 (p. 406 ) says: > children [were] received into the monastery temporarily as *alumni*, to be educated there in contrast to "children [who were] given permanently and devoted to the religious life", which was later forbidden by the Council of Trent session 25, ch. 15: "Profession Shall Not Be Made Except After One Year’s Probation and on the Completion of the Sixteenth Year". Why did the Benedictines stop admitting such young boys to their monasteries for educating them?

As stated above. I know the out-of-pocket answer is "pride", but I'm curious. The angels all had full knowledge of the choice and the resultant consequences, yet a third rebelled. Was it exclusively pride that led them to this decision, or something else? It seems a remarkably unwise decision for a being that knows unequivocally that it will result in eternal torment and separation from God. We can make the obvious argument that this is an awful lot like us, but the angels all had far more information than us. Angels don't need faith, they've all personally met God and know who He is without any doubt. They're timeless and never experienced moments of weakness. They made the decision in utterly ideal circumstances. Was it truly pride and pride alone that led to this?

In the words of the blessed apostle Saint Paul (cf. Philippians 2,5-9): > 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became **obedient unto death, even the death of the cross**. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name. Is according to the obedience of Christ unto death, in contrast with the desobedience of the first Adam (which was also for death, cf. Genesis 2,17), that Christ fulfill the Law and was exalted above all creation. Medidating on what this obedience was, I encoutered this theological opinion in an [article](https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/obedient-unto-death) : > What theologians are trying to do when they distinguish between the active and passive obedience of Christ is point to a very real distinction between different aspects, or different dimensions, of the one life of Christ. Throughout His entire life, Christ fulfilled the Moral Law. But so would Adam have done if sin had not entered the world when he sinned. **It’s the entrance of sin that brings in a new, darker dimension to the obedience required of Man: he must now submit to God’s holy judgment as a result of his transgression. So when Christ comes as the Second Adam, it won’t suffice for Him simply to live the holy life that unfallen Adam ought to have lived. The Second Adam’s obedience also means submitting humbly to the awesome divine verdict on human sin.** but it goes further, saying: > He was submissive throughout His life as He underwent all the hardships and sorrows of a sinless man in a fallen world. But His submission to His Father’s judgment on our sin reached its apex on the cross. **Prior to this, Christ had only walked in the outer shadow of judgment, so to speak, still enjoying the light of His Father’s face. On Skull Hill, He entered the innermost darkness when He cried out, “My God, why have You forsaken Me?” Yet still He embraced the darkness with a submissive spirit — a Son obeying His Father’s purpose, at one with the Father in His redemptive design**. Of course, this is not a catholic opinion, and it's, indeed, catholic doctrine that Christ, in His human nature, have the beatific vision of the Father at all moments of His earthly life, including in the cross. Reading the first part that I quoted, I come to the contemplation that Christ's obedience to the Law, the Eternal Law that emanates from the Father, has really this twofold meaning: Christ fulfill the Law firstly in its virtue and holy life, out of love to the Father, but secondly, because man sinned, and the punishment of sin is the spiritual death (i.e. eternal separation of God), and because sin requires atonement according to this Law, then, in obedience to this decree of the Father and out of love for us, Christ provided in himself this atonement on our behalf, through His passion and consequently death on the cross. Now, because of the second part that I quoted (and rest), i have the impression that the article was pointing to the view of atonement by penal substition, which is contrary to the catholic theology (at least, to the consensus of the Church). **My first question is**: According to catholic theology/teaching, is my reading of the first part wrong, valid or there is no saying on this particular view. Again, my reading is not of penal substition, but on this reflection of the twofold aspect of Christ's obedience. **My second (and main) question is**: What are the main theological opinions within the (Catholic) Church about the nature of the obedience of Christ? It was obedience to the Law of the covenant of Moses? To the Eternal Law of the Father, the Divine Justice? To, specifically, the plan of human redemption of the Father? Every of these at once? I apologize if this question appears to be to simple (I did not complete my cathechesis yet, if this serves of excuse), but what I'm really searching is to run away from the simplistic view that "he was obedient fulfilling the Father's redemption", or something like that, and go deeply in this mystery. God bless.

This may come off as an odd request - but I’m looking for a catholic roadmap of salvation that gives an order to how one comes to salvation and maintain salvation through the sacraments. This request is in order to give a better explanation to my Protestant friends, especially in relation to baptism and faith. Thanks a bunch!

Where can I find old Holy Office decrees that are not contained in the *Acta Sanctæ Sedis* (1856-1908) or in the *Acta Apostolicæ Sedis* (1909-present)? For example, I want to check out the citations for canon 1258 of the 1917 Code listed here: > **S. C. S. Off.**, 23 mart. 1656, ad 4; 13 nov. 1669; decr. 20 nov. 1704; > 9 dec. 1745; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Algeriae), 21 ian. 1751; > > (Mission. Tenos in Pelopponeso), 10 maii 1753, ad 1; > > (Algeriae), 14 sept. 1780; > > (Kentucky), 13 ian. 1818, ad 1; > > (Queebec), 23 febr. 1820, ad 1, 3; > > instr. (ad Ep. Sanctorien.), 12 maii 1841, n.2; > > instr. 22 iun 1859; > > (Sanctorien.), instr. (ad Archiep. Corcyren.), 3 ian. 1871, n. 2; > > (Columbi), 14 ian. 1874; > > (Tunkin. Central.), 29 mart. 1879; > > (Bucarest), 8 maii 1889; 19 aug. 1891; > > instr. 1 aug. 1900; > > 24 ian. 1906; > **S. C. de Prop. Fide** (C. G.), 17 apr. 1758, ad 2; > > 15 dec. 1764, ad 3; > > (C. G. - Antibar.), 2 aug. 1803, ad 1; > > (C. P. pro Sin. - Cochinchin.), 2 iul. 1827; > > (C. G.), 21 nov. 1837; > > instr. (ad Vic. Ap. Scopiae), 26 sept. 1840, ad 14; > > litt. (ad Vic. Ap. Aegypti), 3 maii 1876 I tried to find the last citation in the Acta Sanctae Sedis but couldn't, does anyone know where I should look? I'm interested in all the citations for the canon except *Ex illa*, *Ex quo*, *Inter omnigenas* and *Dolorem*. If anyone can help me find any of the above documents or others cited in the canon I'd appreciate it. Any language is good.

The subject of the "calvinist" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church comes up from time to time, with the 2 sides presenting conflicting versions of events. Here is what I am certain of already. 1. Lucaris was viewed as having heretical beliefs as viewed by the rest of the Orthodox Church at that time. 2. There was a tension between the Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant faiths. 3. There were other ottomans who didn't like Lucaris. The Execution was deceptive from the start, as Lucaris was taken away as if to be banished. But later out of sight of the majority of people they strangled him with a bowstring. --- #### Question: Are there any sources or evidence that indicate one of the 4 parties mentioned were directly involved? Reason: A common assertion is that the orthodox church was attempting to remove him at "any cost", though I can't find evidence to support that.

When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

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

I have just read **Oct 15,2022 at 3:36** and it reminded me of oil I asked a priest to bless. He read the rite word for word except that he did not sprinkle it with holy water. Is it still as efficacious? Thank you. God bless!

According to Catholic exegetes, were Mary Magdalen and Mary of Bethany the same person?

This argument from redeemed zoomer 's twitter account. What is the catholic response to it? > How can you infallibly know whether the true church is the Catholic > Church or the Orthodox Church? > > If you can use fallible historical reason to determine that, then I > can use fallible historical reason to determine the canon of Scripture

In other words, when does association with public sinners become itself a sin or make you a participant in others' sins? Association is not one of the 9 ways of participating in others' sins : 1. By counsel 1. By command 1. By consent 1. By provocation 1. By praise or flattery 1. By concealment 1. By partaking 1. By silence 1. By defense of the ill done

Having sang [What a friend we have in Jesus](https://hymnary.org/text/what_a_friend_we_have_in_jesus_all_our_s) since childhood, sharing with Jesus my griefs (verse 1), my struggle with temptation (verse 2), and my toiling in life (verse 3) is natural for me. But when I encourage a lapsed Catholic friend (who grew up in pre-Vatican II era) to do the same with Jesus, I received a strong pushback, saying he is extremely uncomfortable seeing Jesus that way, how what he most appreciated about the Tridentine Mass is the **utmost respect** that everyone shows to God and to Christ, which is another reason he doesn't like to go to church anymore. I happened to hear him talking to his old high school friend, who to this day remains a devoted Catholic (and who also is a catechist at his parish), telling my friend that **for him missing daily mass feels like not visiting a "friend"** (he meant Jesus who is present bodily in the Eucharist). He then tried to disabuse my friend of his misconceptions of the *Novus Ordo* mass, how it's essentially unchanged doctrinally from the *Tridentine* mass, and encouraged my friend to resume his sacramental life. I don't plan to convert my friend to Protestantism but I am trying to **share the Gospel in Catholic terms**. I would be happy if my friend is willing to go to church again and to have a good relationship with Jesus, even in Catholic terms, like how his high school friend is doing. My friend is fine praying the Rosary, which is [in the same spirit](https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/h/hail-holy-queen-prayer.php) as *Salve Regina*. The *Salve Regina* text (see [here](https://www.preces-latinae.org/thesaurus/BVM/SalveRegina.html) , along with the history and the liturgical use of the prayer) **contains similar language with *What a friend we have in Jesus* hymn but directed to Mary** > To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of tears. followed by a request for Mary to "see" us with compassion and to "show" us Jesus: > Turn then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us. And after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. While I personally do not have a problem with praying to Mary as an individual believer's 1. **spiritual mother** who as the second Eve has *compassion* for us, casualties of the original sin of the first Eve, who like an earthly mother *embraces* and *comforts* a crying child 2. **intercessor**, praying for our salvation, along with the angels and the saints 3. **advocate**, who points us to the One who can help us: God the Father who ***only*** through Jesus Christ His Son takes away our pain, sin, and suffering by our participating in the sacraments, I do wonder whether there is some truth in the Protestant's objection of how prayers to Mary **redirect some aspects** of a believer's relationship with Jesus. It seems to me that Catholic spirituality takes a **BOTH-AND** approach with regards to Jesus and Mary, **dividing the affections** that Protestants direct solely to Jesus. This division of affection by a Catholic seems to match the two main Catholic prayers: - **relating to Mary in the Marian prayers (Rosary, *Salve Regina*):** - as someone who understands us in our weakness like a close friend - as someone whom we are not afraid to approach, because she is "one of us" - as someone who loves us and comforts us like our earthly mother and who wants the best for us - **relating to Jesus as celebrated in the Mass:** - who is the awesome standard of holiness, thus reminds us of our sinfulness (*Kyrie Eleison*) - who is sent by the awesome glorious ruler of heaven and earth (*Sanctus*) - who is also the means of grace through His sacrifice (*Agnus Dei*, the Lamb "who takes away the sins of the world") which then explains perfectly my friend's reticence to relate to Jesus like how the hymn suggests (as a friend). This also explains his preferred attitude when going to mass (utmost respect). Given the above analysis, it now makes sense to me how Eleonore Stump labels her new Atonement Theory described in his 2018 book [*Atonement*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0198813864) **Marian Interpretation** because her theory cannot be easily subsumed under any previous theories in history, though she relies heavily on Thomas Aquinas. In her account Jesus is portrayed as highly compassionate and as having complete solidarity with us in our weaknesses through complete **mind reading** in compassion & solidarity, hence the Marian aspects in *Salve Regina* ("see" and "show"). Believers no longer need to feel distant to God nor afraid of God's justice and holiness, but are instead motivated to lay our burdens to Jesus, receiving his love for us, being united with Him in the Eucharist, and agreeing to be molded to Jesus's image by being yoked with him. I try to understand a theological tradition and a spirituality in their own terms, so I want to understand the Catholic logic of the devotion to both Mary and Jesus **as Catholics understand it**. So, seeing how Catholics seem to relate to Mary as mother and "friend" but to Jesus mostly as Lord, Savior, and Exemplar, although both are united in love toward us (sojourners in exile, striving in the Church Militant), **can you help me understand the role of "friendship with Jesus" in Catholic spirituality**?

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

This question is directed to followers of the Catholic Faith, why do they believe that the dead can still be saved if we intercede for them when scripture explicity states that it is appointed for men to live once after which death and judgment follow. *Hebrews 9:27* >And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment I interpret the verse above to mean that after we die then there is nothing we can do to either glorify or provoke God and that is why we await judgment for works done while in the body. The story of the rich man and Lazarus also shows that the dead can't be saved because the rich man would have applauded to Abraham to intercede for him to enter into life but that didn't happen, the brothers of the rich man were the ones who were still in the world and their hearts were hardened against the prophets and the oracles, which mean that you can still be saved while still in the world and not when you have departed from it. Why do Catholics believe so?