## Many Catholic Depictions of Christ Crucified Show the Piercing into the Right Side. ## **Here are some examples of crucifixes from monastery.com:** - **Crucifixion Icon ** - **Byzantine Crucifix ** And - **San Damiano Crucifix ** It was from the image of Christ in the crucifix at **San Damiano** which miraculously spoke these words to **St. Francis of Assisi**: > **"Go repair My Church."** ## What is the Catholic Basis and Support from the *depositum Fidei* for the Depiction of the Piercing into the Right Side of Christ? ## The **best answer** will have arguments from the **72 Books of the Catholic Bible** and **from the writings of the Church Fathers**. *If there is any relevant supporting information on the topic, such as from the well known private revelations, that may be included in an Endnote.*

While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν ) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1 Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν ) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν ) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3 According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the *depositum fidei*) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth. Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the *depositum fidei*? **Footnotes** 1 Luke 24:27 2 Luke 24:32 3 Luke 24:45

This answer to the question "Is it still prevalent among Roman Catholics to believe that Christ's physical body is present in the Eucharist?" indicates that, according to a 2019 Pew Research survey, as many as 2/3 of self-described Roman Catholics in the U.S. believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are merely symbolic of the body and blood of Christ. > majorities in every age group (including 61% of those age 60 and over) believe that the bread and wine are symbols, not the actual body and blood of Christ. In other words, only 1/3 of those in the U.S. who claimed Roman Catholicism in 2019 believed in transubstantiation (that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ). It is assumed in this question that the current numbers somewhat similar. > a new Pew Research Center survey finds that most self-described Catholics don’t believe this core teaching (bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus Christ). In fact, nearly seven-in-ten Catholics (69%) say they personally believe that during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine used in Communion “are symbols of the body and blood of Jesus Christ.” Just one-third of U.S. Catholics (31%) say they believe that “during Catholic Mass, the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus.” Do self-professed Roman Catholics who disbelieve transubstantiation actually receive the Eucharist when they participate in communion? What I mean is, does the faith of the individual play any role in the proper reception of the Eucharist or is the actual body and blood of Christ consumed regardless of the individual's personal belief? Another way of asking this question (for clarity) is: When a Roman Catholic who disbelieves transubstantiation receives the Eucharist is it mere bread and wine that is consumed? Is there any benefit or detriment to receiving the Eucharist in disbelief?

The Deposit of Faith is limited to the words and actions of Jesus' historical life--is that correct? Only those things that He taught to his disciples and commanded them to pass on to others can be considered part of the Deposit of Faith--is that correct? There were no additions to the Deposit of Faith after Jesus' ascension--is that correct? After the Ascension, all we can is interpret the Deposit of Faith since public revelation has finished and there is no more revelation to come--is that correct? Those sound like different questions, but it's hard to put the whole question into one sentence! :)

I suppose this question is a bit twofold: I'm wondering what Churches the Apostles are historically held to have founded, and in what places; and I'm also wondering who are the men historically held to have succeeded the Apostles as the leaders of these churches, before and after the Apostles' deaths? Do we have any contemporary record of this succession? Are any of the successors Church Fathers? Ultimately I'm interested in looking further into what, if anything, remains of the teaching of these early successors, and what their respective particular Churches express in common of the faith, or on which elements they lay special stress. Thank you for your help! Dan

My understanding is that God revealed everything He wanted to reveal in the life and teachings of Jesus. Jesus then commanded the apostles to proclaim those teachings to the world, but He didn't give them authority to add anything to His teachings. If Jesus did not mention a topic in His life and teachings, the apostles were not given authority to speak on that topic--only to pass on what they had seen and heard. If we cannot find evidence that Jesus taught or acted on a given topic, that topic cannot become part of the Deposit of Faith--is that a correct assumption?

I was fascinated to read in Peter Turner's answer to the question [Why does the Roman Catholic Church not hold to the perspicuity of Scripture?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/54274/why-does-the-roman-catholic-church-not-hold-to-the-perspicuity-of-scripture) the following claim: >Catholics have always held there to be three pillars, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. These three in concert comprise the deposit of Faith. What is the earliest record that we have of the pillars being referred to together in this way? **edit:** let me clear, I'm not hung up on the specific word "pillars", but that the deposit of Faith is clearly defined as consisting of the three aforementioned elements.

According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the *depositum fidei*) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth. According to Catholics, 1. Was the knowledge of the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton a component of the "deposit of faith" entrusted to the apostles and their successors? 2. If so, what is the correct pronunciation? 3. If not, why was the name of God (i.e., the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton) not entrusted to the apostles and their successors?

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, > homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always > declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law cf. [CCC 2357 ], and the inclination to homosexual tendencies is objectively disordered cf. [CCC 2358 ]. This disorder, as the Church terms it, is not limited only to homosexuality. For example, the disorder in man, that say, leads to discord to the marriage union. One comment in this article said, > My "natural action" has ALWAYS been homosexual [...] Noting that to the online commenter, the inclination is "natural" to them, based on her faith, from where does the Church teach the disorder(s) in man comes from? The answer will also define what "intrinsically disordered" means. Related: [Does God create some people Heterosexual and others Homosexual? \[closed\] | *C.SE*][4] .

What is the biblical basis that there is a thing which the Catholic Church terms as *"depositum fidei"*? *Depositum fidei*, i.e the Sacred deposit of the faith that consists of Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition that was mentioned in this answer and this .

The Catholic Church teaches that in order for the saving truths of the faith to be preserved, explained, or observed, Christ endowed his Church with the charism of *infallibility*.1 It is not uncommon to hear that the Holy Spirit will intervene directly in order to preserve the purity of faith e.g. this [YouTube video ]. From Scripture, we know that God can and has saved miraculously and with an outstretched arm . The question is, through Church history, by what evident ordinary methods [grace working in, with, and through imperfect men] has God preserved infallibility in the Catholic Church? 1. cf. E.g. CCC 2035 and CCC 889 .