I am a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the USA. I ask the following question not to be quarrelsome or to demean the Roman Catholic Church. I only wish to obtain an authoritative answer to the question. This question arose [elsewhere](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/113517/what-is-the-current-teaching-of-the-roman-catholic-church-in-regards-to-excommun) in the comments section whether the Roman Catholic Church specifically condemns any particular person to hell. Ken Graham wrote: "For the record, the Church has never declared a person damned, that includes Judas Iscariot." And yet in the Papal Bull [Exsurge Domine](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10exdom.htm) issued by Pope Leo X in 1520 it states: "Moreover, because the preceding errors and many others are contained in the books or writings of Martin Luther.... "Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures." This suggests that Pope Leo X condemned Luther to hell. So, if current practice is not to condemn a particular person to hell, when did that practice change and was there an official edict issued that established the new policy?

The Church has the authority over marriage (Council of Trent , sess. 24, can. 4 ), and Canon Law has established the diriment impediment : >Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage. But can, in addition to this, the Church say that the difference in ages between the man and woman marrying must not be more than, for example, 10 years? Have canonists deliberated on the question of marital age disparity? Is there a reason the Church does not (at least currently) have a law prohibiting marriages with large age disparities?

Some modern Christian leaders, including **Pope Francis**, have made strong statements emphasizing that God is not aligned with violence or those who “wield the sword.” This seems to echo Jesus’ teachings about loving enemies and avoiding retaliation. However, within historic Christian theology, thinkers like **Augustine of Hippo** and **Thomas Aquinas** developed Just War Theory, which allows for the use of force under strict conditions (e.g., defense of the innocent, last resort, proportionality). This raises a tension, especially when considering historical examples such as: - The Allied effort to liberate Europe from Nazi Germany - The freeing of prisoners from concentration camps In such cases, many would argue that the use of force was necessary to stop grave injustice. How do different Christian traditions (e.g., Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox) reconcile: - Strong nonviolence statements about God and the sword with - The moral framework of Just War Theory? Do such statements represent a development of doctrine toward pacifism, or are they best understood as rhetorical or pastoral emphases rather than strict theological claims?

(Welcome God Bless You) I am very sorry for such a long question, and attempting a solution in the question. Please bear with me, first a selection of the oldest creeds before the formal/official Filioque clause: [Links to Earliest Pre- Old Roman Symbol “Proto-Creeds” https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.i.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.ii.html https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2/creeds2.iii.i.iii.html ] ---------------------------------- Old Roman Symbol / Old Roman Creed - Composed in the early 2nd century? I believe in God the Father almighty; and in Christ Jesus His only Son, our Lord, Who was born from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who under Pontius Pilate was crucified and buried, on the third day rose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, whence he will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit, the holy Church, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh, [life everlasting]. Source: https://www.logos.com/grow/the-apostles-creed-its-history-and-origins/?msockid=18dbc452ca76677c0084d13bcb516636 ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Creed of Aquileia – Date 307-309 AD? Credo in Deo Patre omnipotenti invisibili et impassibili (I believe in God the Father Almighty, invisible and impassible) Et in Jesu Christo, unico Filio ejus, Domino nostro (And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord) Qui natus est de Spiritu Sancto ex Maria Virgine (Who was born from the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary) Crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato, et sepultus (Was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried) Descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis (He descended to hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead) Ascendit in cœlos; sedet ad dexteram Patris; (He ascended to the heavens; he sits at the right hand of the Father) Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos; (Thence he is to come to judge the quick and the dead) Et in Spiritu Sancto (And in the Holy Ghost) Sanctam Ecclesiam (The Holy Church) Remissionem peccatorum (The remission of sins) Hujus carnis resurrectionem (The resurrection of this flesh) Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2711.htm -------------------------------------------------- Eusebius’ Caesarean Creed pre- 325AD: Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα θεόν πατέρα παντοκράτορα, We believe in one God the Father Almighty, τὸν τῶν ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀοράτων ποιητήν· Maker of all things visible and invisible; Καὶ εἰς ἕνα κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, τὸν τοῦ θεοῦ λόγον, the Word of God, 30 θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ, God of God, φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, Light of Light, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, Life of Life, υἱὸν μονογενῆ, the only-begotten Son, πρωτότοκον πάσης κτίσεως, the first-born of every creature, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον, begotten of God the Father before all ages, δἰ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο τὰ πάντα· by whom also all things were made; τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, who for our salvation was made flesh and made his home among men; καὶ παθόντα, and suffered; καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, and rose on the third day; καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν πατέρα, and ascended to the Father; καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. and will come again in glory, to judge the quick and the dead. [Πιστεύομεν] καὶ εἰς ἕν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. 31 [We believe] also in one Holy Ghost.32 Τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, πατέρα ἀληθῶς πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἀληθῶς πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθὼς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς εἶπε· πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος. We believe that each of these is and exists, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost; even as our Lord, when sending forth his disciples to preach, said: 'Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' Source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iii.i.x.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------------------ First council of Nicaea 325 AD We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down, and became incarnate and became man, and suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But as for those who say, There was when He was not, and, Before being born He was not, and that He came into existence out of nothing, or who assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or substance, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the Catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes. Source: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/creed_of_nicaea_325.htm Thank you so much for bearing with me, now for the split between Catholic and Orthodox; So The dominant Eastern expression is: “The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son” This is found in: Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, not in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources; a rejection of the filioque? (Tertullian?), Augustine, (later more formulated in Aquinas’s Summa), have a type of filioque, also not found in the preceding old creeds I gave by sources ---------------------------------------------- Perhaps a bias of me – I will give key biblical support for a filioque development: “When the Helper comes… the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father…” — Gospel of John 15:26 Central to Aquinas’ teaching on procession of the Holy Spirit. John 15:26 – Spirit “comes from the Father” but also receives from the Son. John 20:22 Jesus breathes the Spirit upon disciples, illustrating the Spirit’s relational reception from the Son. Galatians 4:6, Romans 8:9, Philippians 1:19 – References to the Spirit as “Spirit of the Son” underscore Tertullian’s relational view. The Spirit of the Son “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts… — Epistle to the Galatians 4:6 The Spirit of Christ “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.” — Epistle to the Romans 8:9 From Pauline texts “Spirit of the Son” (Galatians 4:6) or interchangeably as the “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9; Philippians 1:19). -------------------------------------- Perhaps another bias of mine – Fathers early filioque development: [Would Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus if they read the following disagreed?] Tertullian Ontological Status of the Spirit The Spirit is distinct, yet fully divine; Tertullian rejected any notion of created or inferior status. The Spirit receives divinity from the Father via the Son, sharing fully in co-eternal glory Ambrose of Milan (4th century) In De Spiritu Sancto: The Spirit “proceeds from the Father and the Son” In De Trinitate (c. 400–420), Augustine writes: “The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son” ----------------------------------- An additional supplement Maximus the Confessor attempted reconciliation – I'm not sure about the Holy Catholic Churches stand on this. Maximus the Confessor introduces a two-level ontology of procession, Creation-Deification: First level: Causal Level (Ontological Origin) Greek term: (αἰτία / aitia) Ultimate origin God, the Logos, and the eternal logoi Property: personal, hypostatic Only the Father is cause Relationship: Source of all; Logos and logoi originate here Second level: Mediation / Manifestation, being and purpose only by participating in the first-level Logos Mutual implicative identity and distinction—creatures partake in divinity while remaining distinct. How what proceeds is expressed or communicated --- "Maximus’ model is non-hierarchical, avoiding Dionysian verticality, allowing movement across ontological boundaries based on participatory capacities rather than fixed ontological grades." The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son and is manifested/given from the Son The Spirit can be from the Son relationally Without being caused by the Son --------------------------------- --------------------------------- God the Father (αἰτία) / Ultimate Cause │ ▼ Logos / Eternal Logoi │ ┌──────────────────┴───────────────────┐ │ │ Nature Rational Beings │ │ └──────────────────┬───────────────────┘ │ Manifestation Level Maximus: Mediation Through Son Aquinas (reinterpreted by Maximus): Participation of Son in spiration [side note: related question by another https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/35279/the-difference-between-how-the-holy-spirit-and-son-proceed-from-the-father]

At least since the pontificate of John Paul II, and definitely during the times of Francis, the Church ignores the teaching of many popes including - *Quanta cura * together with *Syllabus Errorum * by Pius IX - *Pascendi Dominici Gregis * by Pius X - *Mortalium animos * by Pius XI and, in fact, acts against the teachings explained therein. Vatican II documents never fully revoked these documents explicitly. The question is if Vatican II did it as a pastoral council (it was a council that was not infallible as confirmed by Paul VI so it couldn't do it anyway). So my question is: is the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in a state of contradiction? If something was declared by Pius IX, X, or XI as sinful can it be without being explained as erroneous, ignored and in fact encouraged as John Paul II Assisi-style ecumenism?

So I have visited various churches of various denominations throughout my life. There was always a somewhat a "They are wrong"-mentality towards other churches/denominations on a theological level. Aka. baptism means this for us and for these reasons, we think baptism is not what X, Y says it is. This is still fine because it just means that there are differences and that people agree to disagree. But when dealing with charismatic or people in "similar" denominations I face more and more what I call flat-out hostility towards the catholic church in particular but it also is directed towards traditional churches like the protestants. I faced statements like: - The pope is a false prophet/teacher - Rome/The Vatican is the whore of Babylon (referring to Revelation 17:1-6) - Priests do the forgiving during the confessions - Catholics are not really Christians (or at least the faith of many is empty) - and a lot more than I care to remember As you can see these kinds of statements are more than just differences in theology where you can say you simply disagree but still can love each other. Now chances are that this kind of thing happens in every denomination towards any other one, but anecdotally speaking, I found the attacks from charismatics (or similar) towards the Catholic Church in particular but also other traditional churches are rising and are particularly underhanded. Of course, the Catholic Church is not without criticism and I am not in this church for my own good reasons, but I still respect them and see Catholics as Christians, Brothers and Sisters in Christ. Hence the question(s): - Is that only my own experience or is there more to it? - If this hostility is prevalent and rising, what are the reasons for it? - (Optional since that might blow up the scope): What strategy do you propose to remedy it on an individual level?

In Catholicism, is it a serious sin to make major decisions as if you don't believe in Catholicism? >"844. Negative doubt is the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite, without forming any positive judgment either of assent to or dissent from the article, or its certainty or uncertainty > >(a) If this suspension of decision results from a wrong motive of the will, which directs one not to give assent on the plea that the intellect, while not judging, offers such formidable difficulties that deception is possible, then it seems that the doubter is guilty of implicit heresy, or at least puts himself in the immediate danger of heresy. > >(b) If this suspension of judgment results from some other motive of the will (e.g. from the wish to give attention here and now to other matters), the guilt of heresy is not incurred, for no positive judgment is formed. Neither does it seem, apart from the danger of consent to positive doubt or from the obligation of an affirmative precept of faith then and there, that any serious sin in matters of faith is committed by such a suspension of judgment. Examples: Titus, being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics, is tempted to doubt the divinity of the Church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the Church is really doubtful, but the difficulty has so impressed him that he decides to hold his judgment in abeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment (i.e., one contained in the motive of the doubt) in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the Church. Balbus has the same difficulty as Titus, and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer a temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects, or that he puts off till a more favorable moment the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Balbus would sin seriously if his suspension of assent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt; he would sin venially, if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness." (McHugh & Callan, *Moral Theology* Vol. I) For example, suppose Bob is dating a Catholic woman and would like to marry her as soon as possible. However, he has some doubts about whether Catholicism is true or not and whether he will ultimately remain Catholic although he continues to practice Catholicism in the mean time. For this reason he is delaying getting married. What will happen to Bob if he dies suddenly? Sure he is theoretically a Catholic in good standing, but he is living as if he doesn't believe in it.

We read in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5, 9 (NRSVCE): >I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them, and they were struck down in the wilderness... We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents. If one puts oneself, by imagination, at the time of the Exodus, one would hear of Yahweh and not Jesus Christ. As such, Paul's way of interpolating the redemptive role of Christ to the time of Exodus, calls for elucidation. My question therefore is: How does the Catholic Church explain the reference made by St Paul to Christ while discussing the irresponsible behavior of the ancestors during Exodus?

I understand that the Catholic Church direct some prayers to Mary, the Mother of Jesus. For me it would be strange to address my prayers to anyone outside the Holy Trinity. Do Catholics pray to any other individuals other than God? Is praying 'to' individuals other than God widely practiced in any other denomination? If so, who do they pray to and why?

Only use evidence from the canon and historical writing from the father's of the faith in the first few centuries that also used scripture canon, not including the apocrypha. The evidence I've seen put forward does not provide substantial evidence that anyone but the Holy Spirit and Christ intercede on our behalf. I hope this question makes sense. I know I am ignorant in this regard and have read the Catholic arguments that appear very weak to me.

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.

As stated into the Catechism > **CCC 1996:** Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life. and also > **CCC 1997:** Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church. Grace is the action of God, through the Holy Spirit, of sanctifying the soul, i.e. transforming it to be in conformitiy with God. Thus, my question is how can we talk about God disposing greater graces to some or lesser graces to others? And if its only a "matter of language", how can we talk about some saints being greater or lesser than others, e.g. The Blessed Virgin Mary being the Most Holy and greatest of all saints?

I was wondering what the different names of the various hours mean in the liturgy of the hours? Where did they come from and what is their significance? They sound badass, but it would be nice to know why they are called what they are called. The hours: - Matins - Prime - Lauds - Terce - Sext - None - Vespers - Compline (I have a hunch that "None" is etymologically related to the english word "noon", seeing as this hour is prayed close to noon)

I am a member of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod in the USA. I belong to a group discussing various theological issues. I am interested in the differences between our doctrine and Roman Catholic doctrine in regards to excommunication. Specifically, I read on [catholic.com](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/excommunication-its-not-what-you-think) that the teaching on excommunication in the Roman Catholic Church changed in 1983. Specifically, at present, "being excommunicated does not mean one is no longer in the Church." According to that article, prior to 1983, an excommunicated individual "was kicked out of the Church". In order to understand this change, I have the following questions: 1) does being "kicked out of the Church" imply the loss of salvation, i.e., does it mean the person, unless reinstated, will go to Hell? 2) is it now the case that an excommunicated individual retains salvation, even if he/she remains unrepentant (that is, will not go to Hell)? 3) Does the answer to these questions relate to Roman Catholic doctrine concerning whether someone can be a member of the Church and yet not be saved (perhaps I am using the incorrect terminology, i.e "retain or loss of salvation" If so, please inform me of the correct term.) Let me emphasize that I am not interested in quarreling or demeaning the Roman Catholic Church. I only wish to obtain authoritative answers to our questions.

One of the key differences between Catholicism and Protestantism is the practice of prayer to saints in heaven, which encouraged in Catholicism but absent in Protestantism. My question is, **according to Catholic teaching, when did this practice begin?** I can find many resources from Catholic sources arguing that it ancient Christians prayed to the saints, pushing the beginning back at least to the late 1st or early 2nd century. How much older they believe "at least" means is not clear. For instance, this article at Catholic Answers has a lengthy collection of quotes from the Fathers, the earliest of which cited is Shephard of Hermas. However, it doesn't say when this practice actually began. They give a Biblical argument for its legitimacy, but nowhere claim that any of the Biblical figures *actually did* pray to deceased saints in heaven. So, I can think of several possibilities for the origin that are consistent with that: * It was first practiced by the early church shortly after the Apostles. * It was first practiced by the Apostles after the ascension of Christ, as an inference from his teachings and revelation from the Holy Spirit. * It was explicitly affirmed by Jesus to the Apostles while he was on the earth. * It was already practiced prior to the Incarnation. The last of these is the most interesting. If it's a pre-Incarnation practice, how far back does it go? Might Noah have prayed to Seth, for instance? Or is it an intertestamental development? Or somewhere in between? *Please note I am **not** asking about any of the following:* 1. Critical perspectives on the origin of prayers to saints. (I want a Catholic perspective.) 2. The idea that the saints in heaven pray for people still on Earth. (That's something Protestants generally accept; the point of difference is whether *we* should invoke *them*, not whether they're praying for us.) 3. The theological foundations of the intercession of the saints. (I want to know when it began to *actually be practiced by the Church,* not when it could have been theoretically valid.) 4. Anything related to prayers to angels. (I'm specifically asking about prayer to human beings in heaven.) 5. Prayers on behalf of the deceased, such as 2nd Maccabees 12:42-46. (There's a significant difference between praying *to* and praying *for* the deceased—in the former case the living are communicating directly with the dead while in the latter they are not.)

Many evangelical Christians say that once a person has accepted Jesus as their Savior and repented of their sins they have formed a bond between their soul and the Lord that is unbreakable. Do Catholics believe that this is true? I have heard that confession of sins to a Priest is common in Catholicism, and wondered how a Catholic would respond to a once saved always saved Christian.

Genesis 1:2 (NRSVCE) reads : >the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. The same verse in New King James Version (NKJV)reads: >The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. I wish to know if the term ' a wind from God' as used in NRSVCE implies the Holy Spirit, or does it only mean a creative energy which set the stage for the creation of primordial life in water? What do the teachings of Catholic Church tell about the latter prospect?

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?

Jesus taught the woman of Samaria that "God is spirit" . The answer to the Penny Catechism Q17. *What is God?* is **God is the supreme Spirit**, *who alone exists of himself, and is infinite in all perfections.* As the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Holy Spirit is God and consubstantial with the Father and the Son. A diagram as one below is sometimes used to explain the mystery of the Blessed Trinity. This is where it gets confusing for me. If each of the persons is God, then from the foregoing we can say > The Holy Spirit is the supreme Spirit. Since the Father and the son are each also the supreme Spirit but not the Holy Spirit, what is "spirit" in the Holy Spirit and how is it different from "spirit" in the supreme Spirit? Catholic perspective preferred but any others welcome from Christians who believe in the Blessed Trinity.

Besides Palm Sunday 2026, when was the last time Mass was not said at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher?