I just want to make sure that I understand this Catholic doctrine correctly or not. > They immolated to demons and not to God, to gods whom they did not know, who were new and recent arrivals, whom their fathers did not worship. – Deuteronomy 32:17 > But the things that the Gentiles immolate, they immolate to demons, and not to God. And I do not want you to become partakers with demons. – 1 Corinthians 10:20 > Translation: (Catholic Public Domain Version)

I read something recently 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!

What is the difference between the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches?

Note: I want to preface this by saying I am not a Christian. Everything I write comes from me trying to understand the topic from within my (mis)understanding of the Christian perspective. I am trying to understand if the Seven Capital Vices really is a comprehensive list of the bases of all sin, where all the bases are truly distinct. I can definitely recognize all of the vices as progenitors of sin, and they do seem basic, quite comprehensive, and fairly distinct. But I'd like to see that more logically. The arguments for such a view will differ, given that the topic has been looked at differently by various scholars. Take a look at this table shown in *Glittering Vices* by Rebecca Konyndyk DeYoung. | Evagrius (4th c.)\* | Cassian (4th/5th c.)† | Gregory (6th c) | Aquinas (13th c.) | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 1\. Gluttony | 1\. Gluttony | *Pride = root* | Pride = root | | 2\. Lust | 2\. Lust | 1\. Vainglory | 1\. Vainglory | | 3\. Avarice | 3\. Avarice | 2\. *Envy* | 2\. Envy | | 4\. Sadness | 4\. Wrath‡ | 3\. *Sadness* | 3\. *Sloth* | | 5\. Anger‡ | 5\. Sadness | 4\. Avarice | 4\. Avarice | | 6\. Sloth (Acedia) | 6\. Sloth | 5\. Wrath | 5\. Wrath | | 7\. Vainglory | 7\. Vainglory | 6\. Lust | 6\. Lust | | 8\. Pride | 8\. Pride | 7\. Gluttony | 7\. Gluttony | \* Evagrius did not maintain a consistent order for his list. † Cassian's list is the same as Evagrius's but is ordered from carnal to spiritual. ‡ "Anger" and "wrath" translate the same Greek and Latin terms, which also refer to the passion or emotion of anger. I take most of my understanding from DeYoung's book, which utilizes Aquinas' taxonomy: Pride is not among the Seven; it is the root of them. So, the basis of all sin is Pride, and at the first stage of specification, Pride manifests as one of the Seven Vices. But, to understand if these Seven Vices actually represent what they're supposed to, we must ask: *specification of what*? They are all sin; they are all forms of Pride, but what differentiates them? If we look at the spectre of fundamental differences in how sin manifests, we are able to logically verify that the seven categories are indeed distinct, comprehensive, and basic. But I have yet to see a very logical explication of this. I begin with a little demo of the kind of thinking I am looking for below: > When Pride blossoms into sin, what is the first "choice" of specification to be made? Well, to ask that, we must ask by what mechanism sin works? All that exists is from God. So, sin must be a corruption of God's work. For us to work as individuals, societies and as a species, we need to have drives. Drives can be placed on a taxonomy of basicness. The most basic drives are those directly given to us by God; less basic drives are simply more specific instantiations of (combinations of) those basic drives. For example, we have the drive to consume sustenance. So, we may have the drive to walk over to a river; that drive is a more specific one, that is simply a specific, less basic, instantiation of the drive to consume sustenance. > > So, it follows that sin must be a corruption of our drives; a disordered effort to fulfill our drives. How could our efforts be disordered? Well, if our efforts to fulfill a drive bring about net wrong, then it is disordered. But how could our effort to fulfill God-given drives bring about net wrongness? If our efforts actually harm our overall fulfillment of our drives, then they bring about net wrongness (AKA, they are "disordered"). Our efforts to fulfill a drive can fail by not actually fulfilling that drive, or by leading to a greater detriment of other drives, or (usually) a little bit of both. In all cases, we are harming our overall fulfillment of our God-given drives. > >So, if this thinking is correct, we may identify the bases of sin by identifying the bases of drives. What is the root drive? Whatever the root drive is, (assuming Aquinas and DeYoung are correct), the corruption of this root drive is Pride. I find the **drive towards self-love** to be a logical contender. Not only does it seem like the basic drive that would give rise to all other drives, that all eventually lead to the attainment of good; it also seems like Pride would be the corruption/disordering of our God-given drive to love ourselves. > > But how to proceed from here? How does this drive/vice get specified at the most fundamental level? It is claimed that the taxonomy of vices has a stem/root made that is Pride, with seven branches (each representing a Capital Vice) sprouting from it, from which all other branches and fruits come from. In logical terms, that means that we start with Pride, and then we ask a single question regarding its specific instantiation. We must find a comprehensive list of distinct answers to this single question. If that list has seven answers that each correspond to a Capital Vice, then we will have shown the taxonomy to be correct. > > It seems obvious the question will be something like "how does one engage in Pride?" Or, equivalently, "how is one's fulfillment for the root drive disordered?" Obviously, that formulation is far too vague. To answer that question in full-detail would not give us seven answers, but thousands! Instead, it must be a much narrower form of this question. So, what is this question? What is the logical structure of the taxonomy of sin? How are the Seven Capital Vices basic, comprehensive, and properly delineated (i.e., all vices are distinct)? And how do they all stem from Pride?

Can a woman whose husband is a credo-baptist believer still go to mass with her husband and family? If they want to delay baptism of their children until they are capable of thinking for themselves will you get kicked out of the Catholic church? They are both Catholics; the husband just feels that baptism is something a person has to decide for him/herself to do. The parents do want their kids baptized; they just want them to choose to do so (when they are mature enough to decide).

If a woman does not reach the climax in the marital act at the time when the husband achieves it (he achieves it before she does), is it morally permissible for her to be stimulated (by herself or her husband) until she achieves it? I am interested in the Catholic viewpoint.

**Lucifer had a dream, what is his dream?** Scriptures teaches, >from the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks."- Fallen Lucifer frustration can be seen, as if he was deprived of something that he wanted to become, like wanting a dream that can no longer be fulfill in the presence of God, and so, he proudly shouted, I can do it on my own, without God. ***The Five I WILL*** is the manifestation of frustration. >**The five “I Wills” are found in the Book of Isaiah:** 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations! 13 And thou saidst in thy heart, >I will ascend into heaven, >I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; >and I will sit upon the mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; >14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; >I will make myself like the Most High. >**Isaiah 14:12-14** We know from Wisdom9:4 that the artisan is seated on the Throne beside God. >**DRA** Give me wisdom, that ***sitteth by thy throne***, and cast me not off from among thy children: **Did Lucifer dream to become the *"consort/Wisdom"* of God, for him to sit beside the Throne of God, and when this did not happen, the frustration ended in rebellion and shouting the 5 I WILL?

The reason I ask is because we have already conceived. So at that point does it matter that it is not vaginal?

According to an Orthodox that replies to someone else in an exchange regarding marital sex, he states, "Remember the words of Psalm 50" (Psalm 51 in Masoretic-based Bibles): > I was conceived in iniquity and in sins did my mother bear me We were never meant to have sex before the fall, so at some level no sexual activity could be considered "pure." After asking him about this view that no sexual activity could be considered pure because we weren't meant to have sex before the fall, he produces an amount of quotes from the early church fathers about the matter: > Saint Gregory of Nyssa, from *On the Making of Man*: > > > Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a > certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him > who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is > closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life > before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also > our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the > angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, > the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel > declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come > upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from > equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that > we might multiply; but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic > nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except > that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of > men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase > mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. > > Saint Gregory Palamas, from his homily *On the Annunciation*: > > > God sent the archangel to a virgin and made her, who continued a virgin, His mother by means of a salutation alone. If He had been > conceived from seed, He would not have been a new man, nor sinless, > nor the Saviour of sinners. The flesh's impulse to reproduce is not > subject to our minds, which God has appointed to govern us, and is not > entirely without sin. That is why David said, "I was shapen in > iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Ps. 50:5). So if the > conception of God had been from seed, He would not have been a new > man, nor the author of new life which will never grow old. If He were > from the old stock and inherited its sin, He would not have been able > to bear within Himself the fullness of the incorruptible Godhead or to > make His flesh an inexhaustible source of sanctification, able to wash > away even the defilement of our First Parents by its abundant power, > and sufficient to sanctify all who came after them. > > The same saint, from the homily *On the Gospel Reading for the > Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman*: > > > What is the starting point of our coming into the world? Is it not almost the same as for irrational animals? Actually it is worse, > because the procreation of animals did not originate from sin, whereas > in our case it was disobedience that brought in marriage. That is why > we receive regeneration through holy baptism, which cuts away the veil > which covers us from our conception. For although marriage, as a > concession from God, is blameless, yet our nature still bears the > tokens of blameworthy events. For that reason one of our holy > theologians [Saint Gregory the Theologian] calls human procreation, > "nocturnal, servile, and subject to passion", and before him David > said, "I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me" > (Ps. 50:5) > > Saint John Chrysostom, from *On Virginity*: > > > When he was created, Adam remained in paradise, and there was no question of marriage. He needed a helper and a helper was provided for > him. But even then marriage did not seem to be necessary... Desire for > sexual intercourse and conception and the pangs and childbirth and > every form of corruption were alien to their soul. > > The same saint, from *Homilies on Genesis*: > > > Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that > intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were > living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with > desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of > nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, > and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . > Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how > they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as > if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did > not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need > for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . . > > In another place, he says: > > > “Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the > practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their > disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there > was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not > subject to the needs of the body? > > And again: > > > Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the > curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The > necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and > skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs. > > Saint John of Damascus, from *An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox > Faith*: > > > Carnal men abuse virginity , and the pleasure-loving bring forward the following verse in proof, Cursed be every one that raises not up > seed in Israel. But we, made confident by God the Word that was made > flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man's > nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin > soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held > sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked > and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that > they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust you are and unto > dust shall you return , when death entered into the world by reason of > the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and > bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the > race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be > preserved through the procreation of children. > > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that > “Be fruitful and multiply ”does not altogether refer to the > multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply > the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to > the end. But God, Who knows all things before they have existence, > knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression > in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made > “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Let us, > then, proceed on our way and see the glories of virginity: and this > also includes chastity. > > Saint Athanasius, from his commentary on the Psalms (specifically > Psalm 50:5 in this case): > > > The original intention of God was for us to generate not by marriage and corruption. But the transgression of the commandment introduced > marriage on account of the lawless act of Adam, that is, the rejection > of the law given him by God. Therefore all of those born of Adam are > “conceived in iniquities,” having fallen under the condemnation of the > forefather. > > Saint Symeon the New Theologian, from the *Ethical Discourses*: > > > There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on > us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission > of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the > Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin. > > Saint Maximus the Confessor, from *Ad Thalassium*: > > > He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his > existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his > existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not > create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s > commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and > sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the > liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though > placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is > sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual > procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in > consequence of his sin. > > Tertullian, from *On the Resurrection of the Flesh*: > > > To this discussion, however, our Lord's declaration puts an effectual end: "They shall be," says He, "equal unto the angels." As > by not marrying, because of not dying, so, of course, by not having to > yield to any like necessity of our bodily state; even as the angels, > too, sometimes. Were "equal unto" men, by eating and drinking, and > submitting their feet to the washing of the bath-having clothed > themselves in human guise, without the loss of their own intrinsic > nature. > > I could go on, if you want, but I believe this is enough. My question is, *why did the early church fathers think that sex was a consequence of the Fall?* if we think that Adam and Eve did have sex before the fall According to this reply in Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange to *Did Adam and Eve not have sex in the Garden of Eden?* (granted, they can be wrong as they are not the Church fathers).

I am asking this question because the entire comment thread in which I asked the question appears to have gone missing, including references to Aquinas (*Summa Theologica* q. 35 a. 6 ), Ludwig Ott (*Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma* bk. 3, pt. 3, ch. 2, §5, 2.), Pohle (*Mariology* pt. 2, ch. 1, §3, Theses II), and others. Wikipedia lists St. Lucia of Syracuse (283-304) as the patron saint of of the blind within Roman Catholicism. She is venerated, along with St. Agnes (patron saint of virgins) among Roman Catholics, Anglican, Lutheran, and Eastern Orthodox churches. She is one of only 8 women explicitly commemorated by Roman Catholics in the Canon of the Mass. There is, within the tradition regarding St. Lucia, the possibility that she was assigned to defilement within a brothel by the Governor of Syracuse. Paschasius ordered her to burn a sacrifice to the emperor's image. When she refused, Paschasius sentenced her to be defiled in a brothel; a particularly heinous crime against someone who had dedicated her chastity to God. In a question regarding the Catholic tradition that Mary (Jesus' mother) did not suffer pain in childbirth (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/7451/where-does-the-catholic-tradition-that-mary-did-not-have-pain-giving-birth-to-je?noredirect=1#comment225832_7451) , included in the comments of a particular answer, came the assertion that, even if Lucia was raped and even if she had survived and produced a child from this violation, she would still be honored by name in the Catholic Mass as a martyred virgin even though her bodily integrity was ruined . This was explained as because an intact hymen is accidental to virginity while the commitment of the will is essential to virginity. In other words the taking of sexual liberty by force and against one's will does nothing to impinge upon one's state of virginity even though it may change the state of one's bodily integrity. Therefore the state of one's bodily integrity has nothing to say, directly, to one's virginal condition. The reference to St. Lucia came about as the bodily integrity of Mary (i.e. no ruptured hymen in childbirth) was indicated as integral to her "perpetual virginity" which is in turn linked to her sinlessness which is in turn linked to her painless childbirth. It seems to me, however, that if an intact hymen is accidental to virginity then a ruptured hymen must surely be accidental to the birth of a virginally conceived child. If St. Lucia would still retain her virginal status in the eyes of the Catholic Church regardless of the state of her bodily integrity following rape, why is it so important for Mary's bodily integrity to remain intact as regards her "perpetual" virginity during childbirth?

There is an article coming from Archbishop Paglia, saying, **"For Catholics, who say that Judas is in hell, is a heresy."** [Vatican Official: It’s Heresy to say Judas is in Hell](https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/vatican-official-claims-its-heresy-to-say-judas-in-hell) When Ab. Paglia stated **"hell"** it means the **"real hell of the damned"**, the question is, was Judas really a damned soul and deserve to be put in real hell of the damned? Remember, when Judas died, he was not cast out in real hell of the damned but only in Hades or hell, a prison. Further reading of scriptures, we know that the Catholic Church teaches in **Catechism (CCC 632k-635)**, that Jesus descended into hell/Hades to preach the gospel. Contemplating the passages, we will see, that Judas encounter Jesus in hell or Hades. The next important question is, if we place ourselves in the shoes of Judas, will we approach Jesus to ask for forgiveness, for betraying him? Judas certainly repented in **Matthew 27:3-4**, with perfect contrition, as he first acknowledge his sins, regretted his sins, and return the money, completing the acts of perfect contrition. > Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver* to the chief priests and elders, > saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? Look to it yourself.” Jesus descended into hell where Judas was cast out, to preach the gospel and to offer God's mercy, on all souls including Judas. Did Jesus have a saving plan for Judas, why? Because, Jesus was the one who pushes Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, how? Jesus said to Judas, > What you are going to do, do quickly." (John 13:27) If Jesus commanded Judas to commit the sins of betrayal, knowing Judas will forever be torture in eternal hell, that would present a Jesus contradicting the Will of the Father, as the Father sent Jesus not to condemn but to save souls in John 3:17, and the Father desires all men be saved in 1 Timothy 2:4. If Jesus has no saving plan for Judas knowing he will be cast out into hell, then Jesus will contradict His very own words, as He said, **"I lay down my life for my friends"**, and Judas was a friend of Jesus, even after his betrayal. On the night of his arrest, Jesus called Judas **"friend"** despite of his acts of betrayal, and so, Jesus lay down His life also to save Judas, because He still a friend of Jesus. And for the second time, Jesus again commanded Judas to execute his plan of betrayal with a kiss. > Jesus responded by saying: "Friend, do what you are here to do." - Matthew 26:50 We can see that twice, Jesus commanded Judas to fulfill and execute his plan of betrayal, wouldn't this be inappropriate if Jesus could no longer save Judas, as it appears that Judas was condemn to hell because Jesus pushes him to do it, not just once but twice. Jesus could have said in the Last Supper, *"Judas I know your betrayal plan for me, you are my friend, and I don't want you to suffer the eternal fire in hell, please stay here, do not execute your betrayal, because if you do so, then I can no longer save you in hell..."* In view of the meditation or pondering of Judas fate and Jesus commands to Judas, is there any article supporting the minor view that Judas is in Heaven, because if the Catholic Church saw that anyone who say Judas is in hell, is a heresy, then, definitely, there's only one way for Judas, either he will be purge in purgatory after he accepted God's mercy offered by Jesus in hell, and it's over 2000 years now, Judas might have finish the purging now, and there's only one way up, but to Heaven. Judas is in Heaven now, because Jesus has a saving plan for him, that is in line with the Will of the Father, desiring all men be saved. And Jesus clearly said, > I have come not to do my own will but the Will of the Father who sent me. (John 6:38) **Is there any article written, seeing Judas is in Heaven now?**

Is there anyone who can answer Yes, to the question, ***who is like God***? **Archangel Michael**: *Who is like God*? **Lucifer**: No, I can't be, because I am not created in the image of God. **Jesus Christ**: Yes, I am!, I am the visible image of the invisible God. > 15**The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.** 16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. - Collosians1:15-16 Is there anyone else, who can claim the ***"I am"***? > "God became man so that man shall became gods." - Athanasius Jesus said, you can do greater things that I am... > 11Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me—or at least believe on account of the works themselves. ***12Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.*** 13And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. - John14:11-13 We know that God like Jesus as His visible image, also God created mankind, male and female in His image and likeness. >27So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. - Genesis1:27 But we know, God is a Spirit, how then can a man claimed the **"I am"?** One Great Marian Saint named, St. Maximillian Kolbe was puzzled at the answer of the Lady saw by Bernadette in the known Lourdes apparition in the 19th century. The young Bernadette asked the Lady in her vision, *who are you?* The Lady answered, **"I am the Immaculate Conception"** St. Kolbe was puzzled by the answer because the word **"I am"** is divine in nature and in no way can be attributed to Our Lady. And so, if St. Michael asked again, ***who is like God?*** Can the Our Lady answered using the word ***"I am"***, can be seen, that She perfected the image and likeness of God in Her whole being, body mind and soul? Remember, the soul can be transform into a spirit, and since God is a Spirit, and anyone who can worship the Father in spirit and truth, had reached theosis or full divinization. *Here is the question:* **The question is: Can Our Lady, looking at Her holiness, righteousness and transformation as written in the bible, and extra-bibilical sources, can answer YES! to the question of St. Michael?** ***"I am"* the Immaculate Conception!** somehow can be seen, as high degree of holiness, as if Mary is seen here, as quasi-incarnating the Holy Spirit, as contemplated upon by St. Kolbe. And, the RCC is being attacked and criticized for over 500 years since the Reformation, as if the Catholic Church is elevating the holiness of Mary as the fourth member of the Holy Trinity. In closing, If Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, said the **"I am"**, is that somehow connected to why St. Gabriel bowed down to Her, and more events in Her life, leading to Her life, that can answer YES! to the question of *"Who is like God"?* Also, the question, by Protestant esp. the Bible Alone Believers, how can Mary hear all the prayer address to Her, is She a God, to hear all those supplications?

Here is the latest of many, many firmly Catholic websites highly recommending C. S. Lewis books more than Catholic classics! I saw this today under the heading "Spiritual Classics"(specific website to be anonymous). Confessions of St. Augustine by St. Augustine, Little Talks with God (modernized version of “The Dialogues”) by St. Catherine, City of God by St. Augustine, The Problem of Pain by C. S. Lewis, Dark Night of the Soul by St. John of the Cross, Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, The Everlasting Man by G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, The Greatest Story Ever Told by Fulton Oursler, Meditations from a Simple Path by Mother Teresa, Interior Castle by St. Teresa of Avila, The Way of Perfection by St. Teresa of Avila, Story of a Soul by St. Therese of Lisieux, My Way of Life/Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Lewis received 3 recommendations when he is NOT Catholic! More recommendations than Augustine and Aquinas. Why would devout, educated Catholics subtly lead people **away** from Catholicism into Protestantism. Why?

Demographics-wise, **has the number of global Christians in communion with the Bishop of Rome** (called "Catholics" for convenience in this Q) **been always the majority in *every* generation since the church in Rome was established**, compared to the number of Christians of all ["Great Church"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church)-compatible denominations? **Criteria for the accepted answer**: - References to scholarly estimates / reputable statistics are needed in the answer. - If the answer is no, then the statistics need to include a historic trend line with a point showing the years when the number lost majority. - If the answer is no, then please consider answering a related question of whether the "Catholic" percentage has always been greater than the percentages of other 4 major groups: Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Churches of the East + Nestorian Asian churches. ### Method of calculation and the rationale "Majority" is defined as more than 50% share of all Christians who subscribe to the key doctrines of the Great Church. The purpose for this answer is to figure out whether in light of post-Nicene schisms, **the numbers of adherents that remained in communion with Rome** from the time of the [Great Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Church) until today ("Great Church" understood as the mainstream that survived various pre-Nicene heresies) **can be interpreted to indicate that the Holy Spirit ***also*** assisted the ecclesial leadership of the Bishop of Rome by numerical strength**. That is why the criteria below excludes Christian movements that are outright incompatible with the key doctrines of the Great Church. This question may not be as straightforward to answer because at one point in the history of global Christianity, the Nestorian Eastern churches were very active in evangelism, widespread, numerous, and consisted of hundreds of bishoprics that mostly have perished and forgotten (except in the academia). See a fascinating 2009 book by historian Philip Jenkins [The Lost History of Christianity: The Thousand-Year Golden Age of the Church in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia--and How It Died](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0061472816) . ### Criteria for group inclusion **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Catholics"** (the numerator of the ratio): 1. The only criteria is **the number of Christians in full communion with the [Bishop of Rome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope)** throughout history. In the modern period, a good starting point would be all the churches listed in the [Pontifical year book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_Pontificio) . 2. Protestant congregations who started afresh OR who broke communion with Rome (such as the [Church of England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England)) should *NOT* be counted. 3. Eastern Orthodox adherents are counted before the [1054 Great schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East%E2%80%93West_Schism) , but not afterwards. 4. [Oriental orthodox churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches) churches (such as the [Armenian Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Apostolic_Church)) are counted before they broke off from the Great Church. 5. [Eastern *Catholic* churches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_churches) in communion with Rome (both Eastern / Oriental Orthodox) such as the [Armenian Catholic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Catholic_Church) SHOULD be counted **starting at the year of their recognition by Rome**, so should ex-Protestant churches who are recognized by Rome such as parishes wishing to be part of [Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Chair_of_Saint_Peter) . 6. [Church of the East](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_East) are counted, but not *after* the [Nestorian schism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorian_schism) . 7. [Ancient churches in Asia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Asia#Early_spread_in_Asia) (some of them Nestorian) are counted, but not after losing contact with the Great Church since after the AD 325 Nicene council. 8. Historic Arian factions (before 8th century) SHOULD be counted because (as far as I know) the centuries-long dispute was resolved without schism (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism#Struggles_with_orthodoxy)) . Similarly, during the 4th-5th century [Donatist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism) Donatist dioceses should *also* be counted because (as far as I know) Rome never break communion with them (but *they* were the ones who broke from Rome because of their stricter doctrine). 9. A [rough historical schema](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Christian_denomination_tree) of the major schisms and reconciliations is shown below. **Only the solid gray and red lines are counted**, plus those not in the picture such as the Personal Ordinariate. 10. Christians who were forced to belong to a non-"Catholic" denomination or externally belong out of political / social expediency, should be counted **according to their external membership** for feasibility of demographics study, even though this makes the study imperfect. For example: - High church Anglicans or British Catholic sympathizers who chose to remain in the Church of England out of fear of political persecution between the [Act of Supremacy (1534)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Supremacy) and the creation of the [Apostolic Vicariate of England (1623)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Vicariate_of_England) should *NOT* be counted. - But Christians who chose to belong to the Vicariate after 1623, especially after the [Catholic Emancipation Act (1829)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Relief_Act_1829) , and those who moved to one of the 12 official Roman Catholic dioceses created after the [Restoration of the Catholic Hierarchy in England (1850)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalis_Ecclesiae) SHOULD of course be counted in the numerator. **For the sake of identifying who **ARE** "Christians":** (the denominator of the ratio): 1. All of the numerator (Christians in full communion with either the Great Church or the Bishop of Rome) 2. All Nicene and Chalcedonian Protestants 3. All Eastern Orthodox churches 4. Historic [Non-Chalcedonian Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Chalcedonian_Christianity) (such as [Coptics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church) , [Syriac](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syriac_Christianity) , other Oriental Orthodox churches, [Nestorians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism) , etc.) who trace their roots to *before* c. AD 500 **ARE** included because: - they were *organic* schisms of the Great Church: they affirmed the common heritage except certain aspects of Christology - they never denied the divine hypostasis of Christ but disagreed only on the relation between the divine nature and the human nature of Christ (see [Christological comparison chart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism#/media/File:Christological_spectrum-o2p.svg)) - they baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit 5. Non-Nicene or non-Chalcedonian [restorationist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restorationism) movements that started *after* c. AD 500 such as LDS, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, Oneness Pentecostals, are **NOT** included because unlike Protestants (who also started after AD 500), they repudiated the core beliefs of the Great Church in one or more of the following ways: - deny the orthodoxy of the Great Church by labelling it the "Great Apostasy" which they dated to happen very early (1st to early 2nd century): [LDS reason](https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-restoration/the-great-apostasy?lang=eng) , [JW reason](https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993005) - deny the divine hypostasis of Jesus (see the [Unitarian narrative](https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/08/02/once-upon-a-time-there-was-a-unitarian-god/)) - baptize [only in the name of Jesus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptism_in_the_name_of_Jesus) ([Oneness Pentecostal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism#Baptismal_formula)) 6. Proto-Protestants such as the [Lollards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy) and the [Hussites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussites) **ARE** included as they would have been part of the orthodoxy of the Great Church. They should *NOT* be counted in the numerator (when feasible). 7. Those who as a group were forced to convert to Christianity (thus subjectively do not identify as Christian), such as the plight of Spanish Jews between 1391 (or earlier) and 1492, (see [article here](https://www.pbs.org/wnet/exploring-hate/2022/07/26/expelled-from-spain-july-31-1492/)) are **NOT** included (when feasible), because their free will have been violated. Although I think it is safe to assume that were they to be included in either the numerator and/or the denominator, it would not change the majority ratio. ### Criteria for individual inclusion Considering [this congregation involvement statistics](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/16/church-involvement-varies-widely-among-u-s-christians/) (thanks to @OneGodTheFather for the discussion), **why are non-practicing Catholics included while the high-involvement JW/LDS members do not even count in the denominator**? This is because the purpose of this Q is to measure whether the Latin Church (later known as the Roman Catholic Church) has always been the church **which most orthodox Christians choose to teach the most "correct" doctrines** about Christianity compared to other valid descendants of the Great Church. The numbers should approximate the number of those who would answer "Yes" to this survey question: > Regardless of your level of faith in Jesus, your participation in church, the church in which you were baptized, how certain you are of the correctness of your church's doctrines, or the church you are attending (eg. if you are attending the church for family reason, not out of conviction), **which denomination would you *choose* as the one that teaches the most correct Christianity**? - Most non-practicing Catholics and C & E Catholics don't go to church more often out of laziness, backsliding, or agnosticism. They don't outright deny the authority of the Catholic church to teach the right doctrines even though they may not agree 100%. That is why they are *included* in the numerator. - Most non-practicing Christians and most of the "Nones" also don't go to church for the same reason, but when asked "which denomination would you most trust to teach the right doctrines of Christianity should you be a practicing Christian again" would STILL be able to choose one of the denomination as the one they would most likely trust over the others, even though they could be in the process mulling over whether to go to another religion. *Until they decide* to practice a non-orthodox form of Christianity (by going LDS, for example) or to practice another religion, they are still *included* in the denominator.

I am looking for the name of the cathedral that contains the following mural. What I know for sure is: - That it has been done between 2004 and 2008, more likely in 2008. - It was made in a Catholic cathedral of a Spanish speaking country. - The original file name is "2B CS.jpg" What I think I know is: - It was a city in Latin America. - The city is on or near the seashore.

[*Mater Populi fidelis* - Doctrinal Note on Some Marian Titles Regarding Mary’s Cooperation in the Work of Salvation (4 November 2025)](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20251104_mater-populi-fidelis_en.html#_Toc201667039) This publication addresses the problem of excessive and inappropriate "Marian devotion". > … there are some **Marian reflection groups**, publications, new devotions, and even requests for Marian dogmas that do not share the same characteristics as popular devotion. > Rather, they ultimately propose a **particular dogmatic development** and express themselves intensely through social media, often **sowing confusion** among ordinary members of the faithful. > Sometimes these initiatives even **involve reinterpretations of expressions** that were used in the past with a variety of meanings. > This document considers such proposals to indicate how some respond to a genuine Marian devotion inspired by the Gospel, and how others **should be avoided since they do not foster a proper contemplation of the harmony of the Christian message as a whole**. Misuse of the titles "Co-redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" is specifically addressed: > *Co-redemptrix* > > 18. Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning. > Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. > **The Second Vatican Council refrained from using the title for dogmatic, pastoral, and ecumenical reasons.** … > > 19. In the Feria IV meeting on 21 February 1996, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was asked whether the request from the movement Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici to define a dogma declaring Mary as the **“Co-redemptrix”** or **“Mediatrix of All Graces”** was acceptable. > In his personal votum, he replied: “**Negative.** > The precise meaning of these titles is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature. > A defined doctrine of divine faith belongs to the Depositum Fidei — that is, to the divine revelation conveyed in Scripture and the apostolic tradition. > However, **it is not clear how the doctrine expressed in these titles is present in Scripture and the apostolic tradition.**” > Later, in 2002, he publicly voiced his opinion against the use of the title: “**the formula ‘Co-redemptrix’ departs to too great an extent from the language of Scripture and of the Fathers and therefore gives rise to misunderstandings…** > Everything comes from Him [Christ], as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. > **The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin.**” > While Cardinal Ratzinger did not deny that there may have been good intentions and valuable aspects in the proposal to use this title, he maintained that they were “being expressed in the wrong way.” > > 21. On at least three occasions, Pope Francis expressed his clear opposition to using the title “Co-redemptrix,” arguing that **Mary “never wished to appropriate anything of her Son for herself. > She never presented herself as a co-Savior. > No, a disciple.”** > Christ’s redemptive work was perfect and needs no addition; therefore, > “Our Lady did not want to take away any title from Jesus… > **She did not ask for herself to be a quasi-redeemer or a co-redeemer: no.** > There is only one Redeemer, and this title cannot be duplicated.” > **Christ “is the only Redeemer; there are no co-redeemers with Christ.”** > For “the sacrifice of the Cross, offered in a spirit of love and obedience, presents the most abundant and infinite satisfaction.” > While we are able to extend its effects in the world (cf. Col 1:24), **neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions**. > > 22. Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, **it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation**. > This title risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and **can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith**, for “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). > When an expression requires many, repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, **it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful**. > In this case, the expression “Co-redemptrix” does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace, for **it carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ** — the Son of God made man for our salvation, who was the only one capable of offering the Father a sacrifice of infinite value — which would not be a true honor to his Mother. > Indeed, as the “handmaid of the Lord” (Lk 1:38), Mary directs us to Christ and asks us to “do whatever he tells you” (Jn 2:5). > *Mediatrix* > > 24. **The biblical statement about Christ’s exclusive mediation is conclusive.** > Christ is the only Mediator, “for there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim 2:5-6). > The Church has clarified this unique place of Christ in light of the fact that he is the eternal and infinite Son of God, hypostatically united with the humanity he assumed. > This is exclusive to Christ’s humanity, and the consequences that derive from it can only be properly applied to him. > In this precise sense, the Incarnate Word’s role is exclusive and unique. > Given this clarity in the revealed Word of God, special prudence is required when applying the term “Mediatrix” to Mary. > In response to a tendency to broaden the scope of Mary’s cooperation through this title, it is helpful to specify the range of its value as well as its limits. > > 27. The Second Vatican Council’s terminology regarding **mediation primarily refers to Christ; it sometimes also refers to Mary, but in a clearly subordinate manner**. > In fact, the Council preferred to use a different terminology for her: one centered on cooperation or maternal assistance. > The Council’s teaching clearly formulates the perspective of Mary’s maternal intercession, using expressions such as “manifold intercession” and “maternal help.” > These two aspects together define the specific nature of Mary’s cooperation in Christ’s action through the Spirit. > Strictly speaking, **we cannot talk of any other mediation in grace apart from that of the incarnate Son of God**. > Therefore, we must always recall, and never obscure, the Christian conviction that “must be firmly believed as a constant element of the Church’s faith” regarding “the truth of Jesus Christ, Son of God, Lord and only Savior, who through the event of his incarnation, death, and resurrection has brought the history of salvation to fulfillment, and which has in him its fullness and center.” Given these clear statements about the inappropriate use of these titles (and condemnation of other aspects of their faith) what do Marian-centered groups see as their future? - Reducing their use of these titles and their extreme devotion to Mary to conform with Church doctrine and practice? - Separating from the Mother Church? - Being excommunicated? - Something else?

I am attempting to explore the differences in theology between various western theological christian positions. And I would like to know according to the Catholic Church’s perspective, what teachings or beliefs of the Presbyterian Church are considered heretical and in what way. I would like to get a list of these in an easy to read list or table. An entry could be something like this example: - The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (sacramental symbolism) is deemed heretical because it rejects the belief that the bread and wine become Christ’s actual Body and Blood during Mass. This matters because the Eucharist as a central sacrament for salvation and communion with Christ according to the Catholic Church.

**Is the SSPX still in full communion with Rome?** The Society of Saint Pius X is a traditionalist Catholic priestly fraternity founded in 1970 by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Monsignor Lefebvre was a leading traditionalist at the Second Vatican Council with the *Coetus Internationalis Patrum* and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers until 1968. The society was originally established as an Association of the Christian faithful of the Roman Catholic Church with the expressed permission of the Swiss Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg, François Charrière. This Catholic Association was in full communion with Rome until 1988 with the Écône consecrations: Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops without the Apostolic Mandate and against a personal warning by Pope John Paul II, resulting in the Vatican declaration that the bishops who consecrated or were consecrated had incurred Latæ Sententiæ (automatic) excommunication. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunications on the remaining living bishops whom Lefebvre had consecrated back in 1988. However certain sanctioned remained in place. On February 12 2026, [the head of the Society of St. Pius X will meet with Vatican officials](https://www.osvnews.com/sspx-leader-to-meet-cardinal-fernandez-after-announcing-unauthorized-bishop-consecrations/) after [announcing (on Feb 2)](https://fsspx.news/en/news/interview-superior-general-priestly-society-saint-pius-x-57064) their intention to consecrate bishops (seemingly without papal approval) in July 2026. I know this is treading on thin ice according to Catholicism, as unsanctioned consecration will provoke an automatic excommunication. Is this society really in full communion with Rome when they actually threaten Rome with open disobedience to get their way? Excommunication remains a ecclesiastical penalty against Catholics. [“Excommunicated Catholics are still Catholic. Bad Catholics, sure; but Catholics.”](https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/20/excommunicated-catholics-are-still-catholic/)

Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

I've heard that both Reformed and Roman Catholic eschatologies have Augustine as a major foundation. True?