I am currently working on a project devoted to the thoughts of the Curé of Ars (St. John Vianney) on various topics. One of the topics is *scruples*. St. Alphonsus Liguori, for instance, has this to say about scruples itself: > A conscience is scrupulous when, for a frivolous reason and without rational basis, there is a frequent fear of sin even though in reality there is no sin at all. A scruple is a defective understanding of something. St. Philip Neri seemed to have a fair amount to say on the subject, including > The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples. And he offered the following advice to those pestered by scruples: > If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented. and > When a scrupulous person has once made up his mind that he has not consented to a temptation, he must not reason the matter over again to see whether he has really consented or not, for the same temptations often return by making this sort of reflection. However, when I searched, for example, the various sermons and catechetical instructions of the Curé of Ars, I could find nothing along these lines. In fact, I could find nothing at all in which anything directly regarding *scruples* in the above sense is even mentioned. St. John Vianney, has, however, used the word in a slightly different sense on several occasions; when, for example, he says: > My children, you make a scruple of missing holy Mass, because you commit a great sin in missing it by your own fault ; but you have no scruple in missing an instruction. and also, > He [lukewarm Christian] has few scruples in cutting out, on the least pretext, the Asperges and the prayers before Mass. But, alas, I can find nothing regarding his having addressed *scruples* specifically as a spiritual disease. I have consulted his definitive biography by Trochu, and all I could find in there regarding scruples as a disease, is a reference that Trochu makes in regards to St. Benedict Labre en route to receiving the hospitality of the Vianney household when St. John Vianney was a little boy: > Tortured by scruples, Benoit Labre had just left the Trappist monastery of Sept-Fonds, where he had been a novice under the name of Brother Urban. He had now acquired a certainty that his vocation was to be a wayfarer for the remainder of his life, so he set out for Rome. His first halt was at Paray-le-Monial, where he paid long visits to the chapel of the Apparitions. From Paray he journeyed to Lyons, but rather than enter the city at nightfall he chose to spend the night at Dardilly. On observing a number of poor persons going to the house of Pierre Vianney, he went along with them. QUESTION: Does anyone know if the Curé of Ars had had anything to say about the disease of *scruples* directly, perhaps along the lines of the Liguori and Neri quotes provided above; and if so, what are they or where I may find them? (The sources I have used, for the most part, are in English. Perhaps there is something in the French in which the subject is directly addressed?) Thank you.

I'd say a successful band is one that sticks together for 10 years or so and has one of those TLA or first-name awards or a top-40 hit or is actually played on the radio. I'm not into the music scene, but I noticed a discrepancy when checking out Pandora for Christmas tunes and finding an LDS station, but no specifically Catholic tunes. Has there ever been a successful Catholic group or artist singing music you'd hear on your local Christian rock station? Not just an artist in any genre who happens to be Catholic or an artist who was successful, converted to Catholicism and started appealing to a niche crowd (i.e. John Michael Talbot), but an artist or group like the Newsboys or Toby Mac. --- I think this is an objectively answerable question, there's a wiki page for [Roman Catholic Musicians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_Church_musicians) but it is lacking both John Michael Talbot and The Singing Nun. I edited the question to say, since the Singing Nun since [Sister Smile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Singing_Nun) would be an example of a "success" in the music business at least, but I've already got her record and I don't need another.

Greek and Latin are sacred liturgical languages, but has Hebrew ever been used in a Christian liturgy? By liturgy, I mean the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. By Hebrew, I mean ancient Hebrew, the (non-vernacular) liturgical language used in Jesus's time.

The concluding prayer of [Litany of Divine Mercy](https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/devotions/litany-to-the-divine-mercy-263) goes like this: >Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us and increase Your mercy in us, .... When we say that God's mercy is endless, it implies that we require sufficient capacity to absorb from the boundless ocean of mercy. But then, what is the significance of praying that God may increase his mercy on us? How do Catholic scholars explain the prayer?

I've been going to Latin Mass on and off for a while and noticed that some people have adopted as some sort of meme a habit of bowing when the priest passes by and genuflecting when the processional cross passes by. I am personally, an obstinate stubborn sort of fool who won't adopt any practice, no matter how pious, unless it is explained to me personally. (I never dipped my hand in holy water until I heard a homily about it in my teens.) So, I'd really like to know whether or not this is a good, true and beautiful practice or just some Latin LARPer accretion which I would be best to avoid. Furthermore, if it is a good thing to do for TLM, should I do this during the *Novus Ordo* Mass? Why or why not?

If the Catholic Church acquired ChatGPT, could the chatbot hear confessions? Or does Catholic Doctrine mandate that a human priest must hear all confessions?

This has always seemed strange to me that the Pope would not want to distance himself with emperor worship as much as possible. If pointifex maximus was a term used by the government of Rome in its emperor worship, wouldn’t the Pope’s PR men advise using a different title? Or am I not correct in the initial assumption? Also, I have seen on occasion that he used a pointy hat (the original pontifex maximus) does the Pope ever wear similar clothes as well? Or is there no similarity in dress at all?

For example, if someone is at home alone and naked, or just wearing tops and no underwear.

In traveling around my diocese I've noticed that there are some parishes that are hand-holders and some parishes that are non-hand-holders and some people in the non-hand-holder parishes who persist in hand holding and some people in the hand holder parishes who abstain from hand holding. Also, there are some parishes where it is common to raise up your hands together for the doxology of the prayer. And some parishes where even unheld hands are held up like the priest does. I know that pure imitation of the priest isn't good (his hands are blessed, mine aren't), but what I don't know is if spontaneous hand holding by the congregation is totally licit and where the tradition came from. My mom told me it was, "something Protestants did in the 60's that Catholic's picked up on" is that all it is? Was there ever a Bishop who told his diocese to hold hands or not to hold hands?

There are many holidays/feasts that end in -mas, like: 1. [Christmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas) 2. [Marymas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_of_Mary#cite_note-A-2) 3. [Michaelmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaelmas) 4. [Roodmas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roodmas) 5. [Candlemas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemas) How many other -mas's are there?

> Beginning in the spring of 1917, the children reported apparitions of > an Angel, and starting in May 1917, apparitions of the Virgin Mary, > whom the children described as "the Lady more brilliant than the Sun". > (quoted in Wikipedia ) *. *Was this report accurate? How did Mary really look like in the Fatima Apparitions according to trusted Catholic sources?  (*We are not alone in the Universe* , Konrad Kulczyk, Sixth Books 2012)

In the now defunct Sarum Rite (Usage) of the Roman Rite one can find the title of this **Feast of the Triumph of Christ over the Devil** as celebrated on February 15th. This “historical” feast was extremely ancient and is only found in some of the more ancient Sarum Liturgical Calendars. It is now completely obsolete. Sadly enough, I can not find sources of this feast online. It existed on a few of the more ancient documents and Sarum Liturgical Calendars. I am guessing that with regards to the Sarum Liturgical Calendar some online sources state that the inclusion in liturgy calendars of several *"historical dates"* was quite common in the Middle Ages, such as the listing of the [Resurrection of Our Lord on March 27th](https://archive.org/details/cu31924092460033/page/n31/mode/2up?view=theater) . Given the fact, that historical Liturgical sources would be very difficult to non-existant about what this feast of the ***Triumph of Christ over the Devil*** actually celebrated like or what Gospel events it entailed, would anyone have any input or information on what the Sarum meant by he Triumph of Christ over the Devil. If no such information can be found, would anyone possibly have the liturgical inclination as to what the inspiration and meaning would be and why it would be placed on February 15th. As a side note, this question may be of help or interest to some: [Did the Annunciation and Good Friday coincide?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/47170/did-the-annunciation-and-good-friday-coincide) I would prefer a Canon or traditional type of answer. However, if no one can provide a response that is factually supported, one that is based liturgical principles and/or tradition Catholic logic will be acceptable.

Do you have to be in a state of grace to be invested with the Brown Scapular?

After reading and doing light research concerning [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66072/is-mercy-above-orthodoxy) , I'm compelled to ask, what is the process for establishing the orthodoxy of a belief in the Catholic church today? [From m-w.com](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthodoxy) : > 1 : the quality or state of being orthodox
> 2 : an orthodox belief or practice [From Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy) : > Orthodoxy is adherence to correct or accepted creeds, especially in religion. In the Christian sense the term means "conforming to the Christian faith as represented in the creeds of the early Church." The first seven ecumenical councils were held between the years of 325 and 787 with the aim of formalizing accepted doctrines. Based on these two references (and my own, personal understanding), *orthodoxy* is a belief established by a religion, presumably based on its source canon. Thus, the Biblical "Thou shalt not kill" might be considered doctrine, and therefore an accepted/official belief of the church that capital punishment is unacceptable as a form of punishment would be considered an "orthodox belief" or "orthodoxy." What, then, is the official procedure in the Catholic church for establishing a belief (new or modified) as *orthodox?*

In the New Law, is the death penalty for sodomy (or other sins of lust, like fornication or adultery) a proportionate punishment? In other words, do Catholic theologians say legislators are morally permitted to write a law requiring the death penalty for homosexual or other acts of lust? Under the Old Law, Lev 20:13 did proscribe sodomy with capital punishment. cf. this post to the CathInfo thread "What Trump policies show he is pro-abortion or pro-sodomy? "

Did any theologians think that the limbo for children (*limbus puerorum*) is part of purgatory?

Will the people, who end up in heaven, gain additional glory for each soul that profits from their writings? For example, St. Augustine wrote many good books. Now he is in heaven. To this very day, people read his books and have spiritual benefits. Does St. Augustine receive additional beatitude in heaven for each soul that profits from his books? I want a Catholic answer.

Many contemporary Catholic commentators claim that there have been only two ex cathedra statements in history—Ineffabilis Deus (1854, on the Immaculate Conception) and Munificentissimus Deus (1950, on the Assumption). Yet the Relatio of Bishop Vincent Gasser at Vatican I (1870)—the official interpretive document for Pastor Aeternus—insists that papal infallibility had already been exercised “thousands and thousands of times.” This document was appended to the council’s acts and cited again at Vatican II. If the magisterial tradition acknowledges repeated infallible teachings, why does the notion of “only two ex cathedra statements” persist? Where does this restricted interpretation originate? Requested excerpts from the Relatio: > (30). But some will persist and say: "[...] let us also define the form to be used by the Pontiff in such a judgment." It seems to me that this was the mind of some of the most reverend fathers as they spoke from this podium. But, most eminent and reverend fathers, **this proposal simply cannot be accepted because we are not dealing with something new here. Already thousands and thousands of dogmatic judgments have gone forth from the Apostolic See; where is the law which prescribed the form to be observed in such judgments?**" > (90). In this definition we treat: (01) the subject of infallibility, namely the Roman Pontiff as Pontiff, i.e., **as a public person in relation to the Universal Church.** (02) There is contained in the definition the act, or the quality and condition of the act of an infallible pontifical definition, i.e., the Pontiff is said to be infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra." This formula is received in the schools, and the meaning of this formula as it is found in the very body of the definition is as follows: when the supreme Pontiff speaks "ex cathedra," **not, first of all, when he decrees something as a private teacher, nor only as the bishop and ordinary of a particular See and province, but when he teaches as exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher of all Christians.** Secondly, not just any manner of proposing the doctrine is sufficient even when he is exercising his office as supreme pastor and teacher. Rather, **there is required the manifest intention of defining doctrine, either of putting an end to a doubt about a certain doctrine or of defining a thing, giving a definitive judgment and proposing that doctrine as one which must be held by the Universal Church.** ... Some common examples of statements that clearly passs the "Gasser test" for infalliblity. > **Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject [both spiritually and temporally; see prev. paragraphs] to the Roman Pontiff.** > > — Unam Sanctam, *Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302* Included in _Sources of Catholic Dogma, 'Denzinger'_, see 468 and 469 1. In discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull. 2. Defines a doctrine: "we declare, we proclaim, we **define**…" 3. Regarding faith or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation. 4. To be held by the universal Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church. > The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches [...] that no one existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, can become partakers of eternal life, but will go into _the eternal fire_ _prepared for the devil and his angels_, unless they are gathered to it before the end of life, and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only those who remain in it benefit from the ecclesiastical sacraments and fasting, almsgiving and other offices of piety and exercises of the Christian soldiery bring forth eternal rewards, and that no one, no matter how much alms he gives and if he sheds blood for the name of Christ, can be saved unless he remains in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. > > — Cantate Domino, *Bull of Pope Eugene IV, February 4, 1442, Council of Florence* Included in _Sources of Catholic Dogma, 'Denzinger'_, see 703 to 715 1. In discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority: The document is an authoritative papal bull. 2. Defines a doctrine: The necessity of submission to the Roman Church for salvation. 3. Regarding faith or morals: Yes. He speaks about what is necessary for salvation. 4. To be held by the universal Church: Bulls are addressed to the whole Church. Additionally, Wikipedia lists five others: 1. *Tome to Flavian*, by Pope Leo I (449), on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon. 2. Letter of Pope Agatho (680), on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople. 3. *Benedictus Deus*, by Pope Benedict XII (1336), on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to the final judgment. 4. *Cum occasione*, by Pope Innocent X (1653), condemning five propositions of Cornelius Jansen as heretical. 5. *Auctorem fidei*, by Pope Pius VI (1794), condemning several Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical.

Joan Carroll Cruz, *Prayers and Heavenly Promises: Compiled from Approved Sources* claims: >PROMISES: According to St. Bridget of Sweden (1303-1373), the Blessed Virgin grants seven graces to the souls who honor her daily by saying seven *Hail Marys* while meditating on her tears and dolors: > > 1. “I will grant peace to their families.” > 2. “They will be enlightened about the divine Mysteries.” > 2. “I will console them in their pains and I will accompany them in their work.” > 2. “I will give them as much as they ask for as long as it does not oppose the adorable will of my divine Son or the sanctification of their souls.” > 2. “I will defend them in their spiritual battles with the infernal enemy and I will protect them at every instant of their lives.” > 2. “I will visibly help them at the moment of their death—they will see the face of their mother.” > 2. “I have obtained this grace from my divine Son, that those who propagate this devotion to my tears and dolors will be taken directly from this earthly life to eternal happiness, since all their sins will be forgiven and my Son will be their eternal consolation and joy.” Where exactly in *The Revelations of St. Birgitta of Sweden* do these promises occur? I couldn't find them there.

Both Orthodox and Catholic Christians believe and affirm that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the ***ark of the new covenant***, but is there a scriptural basis for this and if so where do we see this in the Old or the New Testament?