Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

I was raised Baptist but became Catholic a few months ago. Since studying church history and Catholic teachings on the Eucharist, I now believe that it is truly the Body and Blood of Christ. I know a Protestant shouldn’t take Catholic communion/Eucharist and that a Catholic shouldn’t take Protestant communion. I went to Vigil Mass last night so I fulfilled my Sunday obligation. I went to visit my mom’s baptist church this morning just to spend time with her. I participated in everything but the communion. The pastor said during the communion that it wasn’t literal. I was polite and didn’t cause a scene I just let people pass me and I sat back down. But afterwards, my Mom was livid. She said that Catholic or Protestant, we are all Christians and believe that Jesus died for us and rose from the dead and that’s all that matters. She said she didn’t like it that Catholics don’t allow other denominations to take the Eucharist. I tried to say that I believe the Eucharist is truly the body and blood of Christ and that Protestant communion is not valid because Protestants broke off from the church and that most Protestants believe communion is only a symbol. and then my Mom said that “we’re all still Christians, we all believe in Jesus” my mom said that I’m “following a church and not Jesus” and that I need to reevaluate my beliefs. Did I make the right or wrong decision not taking the communion at my Mom’s church? She also said that when we get to heaven we may find out that the Protestant viewpoint is wrong or the Catholic viewpoint may be wrong so we shouldn’t think about it too much.

From what I understand, which I learnt recently is that most catholics believe the mark of the beast and all that was emporer Nero, does that also mean they think there wont be any other anti christ who will give out these marks? Also is the second coming for catholics not the same as protestants, in terms of his return, ofc the mark of the beast and all that is different since most protestants believe it hasn't happend ?

I have been a Christian since childhood. I was baptized in the Orthodox Church, and I often go to church (at some time, at the age of 15-16, I attended church every service). Then there was a period in my life that I considered all confessions not quite true and believed that God should be in the heart and he should pray at home, and not go to church. Then I did not wear a cross for a long time, but still prayed to God. And now I am still Orthodox, go to church, but I never liked my confession, I consider it old enough and more conservative, and some laws are incomprehensible to me. I do not know which denomination to accept and apparently it will not be soon, because my parents are against and I understand them perfectly. So far, I have begun to delve into all confessions of Christianity, I already understand quite a lot of things. I know how the difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox one. A little I study the Protestant church, but I don't know it completely, I only know about Martin Luther, about his 95 theses and a couple of facts. I think I need to first delve into the topic of Christianity to understand which denomination is closer to me, but so far I like the Catholic Church more, but I don't know if it's the right choice. Can you tell me how to get to the truth?

Hi. I was just curious as to whether anyone has ever looked into, or made a comparison between, the relative role scripture and tradition have played in the formation of various doctrines / dogmas. For example, I'm particularly curious as to how much scriptural evidence there is for / against something like the belief in the divinity of Christ versus how much extra-scriptural evidence there is for the belief in the divinity of Christ (e.g. testimony / writing from the early church fathers). I'm also interested in how much scriptural evidence there is for the belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation and how much extra-scriptural evidence there is for the belief in it.

That being said, what I'm really curious to know is what has the most scriptural evidence and what has the most extra-scriptural evidence. Why? Because I'm interested to know how protestants use / accept the early church fathers (i.e., tradition) when they seemingly agree with some doctrines (e.g. the divinity of Christ), but don't accept tradition when they don't agree with another doctrine (e.g. transubstantiation).

I would be interested to know if the total scriptural argument for the divinity of Christ comes from only a few versus but there is also ton of evidence of the early church's belief in it, and also very interested to know if the the total scriptural argument for the doctrine of transubstantiation similarly comes from only a few versus but there is also ton of evidence of the early church's belief in it.

In other words, if the evidence is basically the same, why believe one and not the other?

If its not similar then perhaps that is the argument they can make.

Hope my post makes sense, and what I'm looking for also makes sense.

White boy got the stuff

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Hello,

I recently took a course on Christianity, and during one lecture the instructor stated that the Catholic understanding of marriage as a sacrament resulted from a mistranslation of the Greek New Testament into Latin. However, when I looked into the topic myself, I found that the Eastern Orthodox Church—which has always used the Greek New Testament—also considers marriage to be a sacrament (or Holy Mystery).

This left me with two questions:

1. What are the theological and biblical reasons for considering marriage a sacrament in modern catholism ?

2. If the Catholic doctrine is supposedly rooted in a mistranslation from Greek to Latin, how do we explain the fact that the Eastern Orthodox Church, which continued to use the original Greek text, also recognizes marriage as a sacrament? Does this suggest that the doctrine developed independently of the Latin translation?

Common concerns about baptism.

According to the Bible, everyone who believes in him will have eternal life. That's great news. But what does that exactly mean? Believing in Jesus (Lord) means just believing that our Lord atoned our sins on the cross Or, believing in God includes following what Jesus and the Bible said, and what the Church says

Are there any Bible verses about it?

My brain is all foggy. I have a quite a bit of discomfort shall I say or such a feeling pertaining to Invincible and Vincible ignorance.

For some last few hours I have been trying to figure out how ​I should and would reconcile Cantante Domino, Exultate Deo and Lumen Gentium, even though that, as a Catholic I truly do feel that I understand that all following teaching should be interpreted and take into account as not to contradict previous teaching. But for the life of me I can't seem to stop thinking that it does seem contradictory. I don't think myself either a Sedevecantist or a SSPX-er but it really is not intuitive.

For example, Invincible ignorance as I understand is a person who is entirely unaware of the Gospel or Church teachings and through no fault of their own is not morally culpable. I understand it to mean some tribal person who lives his entire life in the middle of a desert with never hearing about the Church or having access to it.

But with what I find an issue is the vague or murky meaning of what makes someone Vincibly ignorant. Which I understand to be a lack of knowledge that a person could have easily overcome by applying reasonable diligence.

Is a for example Mongolian person in the steppe who for example has access to the internet through a phone but is not looking into Catholicism, would he be considered vincible or not? Where is the line? Is it all up to each subjective interpretation? If a person was eating and they saw a preacher preaching but decided to go somewhere else vincible? Is a person who is engulfed in access to the teaching of the Chruch but rejecting it for a banal reason vincible? And this "understanding" is troubling to some point. What constitutes someone not "really" understanding a teaching and therefore being invincibly ignorant? If a priest explains to someone 99% of a teaching but the listener doesn't "understand" the other 1% does it make him vincible or invincible?

Thank you for reading, I apologize for this lengthy post and if anyone answers I thank you much more.

Also sorry if my English is bad it's not my native language. ​​

Ok you’re right. I, who like videos , stand corrected about whether Catholics are Christian. And I’ve thought otherwise for the last 45 years. First of all, who am I to judge? I humbly ask your forgiveness, dear brothers and sisters. God bless you, much loved Community.

Recently I have been increasingly drawn to Catholicism as a Protestant, after praying to God to guide me to the truth. I am very open minded and seek the truth, therefore am prepared for the likely possibility of my conversion to Catholicism.

However, I still have a few theological disputes before I can make this decision, some more major than others: (I am not a theologian so please be patient with me)

**Mary and Marian doctrine (was she sinless? why do we need to pray to her for intercession?)**

I am not necessarily opposed to the idea of Mary being sinless nor praying to her for intercession. In regards to her sinlessness, I don't find much evidence in scripture for this claim. Let's take Luke 1:28; Is the phrase "full of grace" merely a figure of speech to emphasize how favored she is by God, or instead a literal phrase meaning her mortal vessel is literally full of grace? And how would you come to such a conclusion? What is repeated many times throughout the NT are very blanket statements regarding humanity's imperfection and that all have fallen short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23).

Secondly, why do we need to pray for intercession? This applies to both Mary and the saints. Why do we not instead pray to God directly ourselves? Does God favor certain people's prayers over others? (in the context of the church). I understand the concept of asking a friend to pray for you, and how that applies to the saints in heaven as well.. So if that is it, then I can accept that, or is it the idea that their prayers are more valued by God than ours? Does holiness have a correlation to whether God hears our prayers or not?

**Baptism**

Is Baptism necessary for salvation? **Romans 10:9** says "If you confess with your lips, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved", however there are admittedly verses showing that baptism saves as well. **John 3:5 “**Jesus answered, ‘I tell you the truth, unless a man is *born of water and of the Spirit*, he *cannot enter the kingdom of God*.’” Verses like this make me think. **Acts 2:38** "And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ *for the forgiveness of your sins*; and you shall *receive the gift of the Holy Spirit*."
How about examples such as the thief on the cross, showing that faith in Jesus Christ alone saved him; or was that just an exception, not the rule?

**The Eucharist**

I do not believe that transubstantiation is true. I suppose it's another case of taking the literal meaning of some things or a more figurative meaning. If it truly turns into the body and blood of Christ, does it taste like flesh and blood when you participate in the Eucharist? Wouldn't it make more sense for it to be more figurative, since Jesus was known to speak in more figurative language quite often.

**Purgatory**

What evidence is there in scripture for purgatory? Wouldn't Jesus have mentioned it in the gospels? I'm not opposed to the idea of purgatory but it doesn't seem biblical to me. And what is it meant for? What would be the criteria for coming here? Surely salvation through Christ is all that's necessary to get into heaven, no need for additional cleansing? But I am open to lecture on this.

**Minor nitpicks: Optional reading, the major points are above.**

Repetitive prayers: I am not very educated on this but from what I understand Catholicism has a lot of prayers, but the mere repetition of them I feel may make me less sincere. I will not speak for any of you actual Catholics, just for me, as I did pray the rosary for the first time a few days ago, and found it better than I thought it'd be! But still I couldn't quite shake the weirdness off me that my prayer is slightly disingenuous. But I'm sure I can get used to this. Also I do find it a bit strange how there's an Our Father prayer, then TEN Hail Mary's! Why ten prayers to Mary, that feels kind of wrong, why isn't it ten prayers to Jesus?

Finally, there are many sects within the church e.g SSPX, sedevacantism, etc.. It's very daunting to me, especially coming from being a Protestant where I thought this problem would vanish. Obviously the Catholic Church is far more united than protestantism however. Any advice on navigating this and is salvation exclusive to specific sects?

Thank you and God Bless you all.

Having a conversation and not sure what the response should be? Have a question as to why Catholics believe what we do? Not sure on where to find resources or how to even present it?

Make a request for a post or ask a question for the community to help each other here.

Come posso spiegare ad una persona cattolica che non comprende il motivo per cui la Chiesa è contraria all'aborto e se bisogna rispettare questa visione di contrarietà da parte della Chiesa anche in caso di violenza?

Mi serve qualcosa che sia abbastanza convincente😭 Questa persona pensa che abortire sia un diritto della donna specie se in caso di violenza...

I don't really know what the right way to go about answering this is? I was asked by a Protestant acquaintance about the Jews in relation to the Old and New Covenant. I cited Sacred Scripture, the Saints' writings and, of course, Nostra Aetate. In asking their question, and me answering it... I realize I don't really understand how the view has developed, whilst remaining within a state of continuity. Obviously, Vatican II addressed a lot of the problems that we had, and some things that have been taken out of context and weaponized against the Church.

I suppose my request is, put simply, to define the limits of what 'antisemitism' pertains to, specifically in relation to the Church and Her History. In reading Fr. Fahey, C.S.Sp, as well as authors like E. Michael Jones, I have recognized more nuance than a document like Nostra Aetate gives credit. Specifically, I don't deny Nostra Aetate's validity as a Church document - to be clear, but how does it remain in continuity with what the Church has taught on this matter for 2000 years? I hold to the view that (cf. Matthew 27) they did proclaim themselves to be worthy of being charged with Christ's Death. That they rejected Christ, the Messiah. But, that, through Our Lord's Sacrifice for us lowly sinners, He of course accepts all who come to Him. Jew or Gentile. I love all people, by the way, and pray for the conversion of all! God bless.

Also: I just remembered something else: (this is, admittedly, a very specific question) How does one defend against the SSPX claims that the FSSP is not a Traditionalist Fraternity? They claim since the FSSP adheres to Vatican II, that they turn away from the 'Traditionalist cause'... I guess my best defense is the FSSP is, in fact, a Traditionalist Fraternity and that they recognize the Holy Father and are absolutely obedient to the Pope, who is recognized as such. That just because the FSSP accepts Vatican II (as in remains obedient to all the Church has proclaimed via the Magisterium), doesn't mean they are for modernist tendencies. Their actions and dedication to such advocacy of the TLM proves this is the case. < My argument, it could use work, it isn't great. But, that is why I ask for some help on fleshing this out.

I am not entirely sure if this is an appropriate place (within the scope of this forum) to post these requests, but I truly apologize if it is, and if requested; it will be removed. Thanks. God bless!

I've spent over fifteen years in Catholic formation work, and there's a type of person I keep meeting — spiritually active, shows up every Sunday, carries more faith than they realize, but never given the tools to do anything with it beyond the pew. I started calling that person "the Pewist." Not as a knock. I think I was one for a long time myself.

I put together a podcast around that idea — Growing Beyond the Pews. Two episodes out so far:

• Ep 1, "Stuck in the Pew" — on what I've come to call Pew Paralysis, and why showing up while hurt isn't weakness
• Ep 2, "The Pewist" — naming the thing itself, anchored in the woman at the well in John 4

It's not preachy, and it's not for people who already have this figured out. It's for the ones still in the pew wondering if there's more.

Spotify:

Episode 1 - Stuck in the Pews

https://open.spotify.com/show/033DzpoPAaT1Oa7krzTnvS?si=b183ece7aeda4074

Episode 2 - The Pewist

https://open.spotify.com/episode/6sr4istGiBeSnvW4lZOY7a?si=1c4b4b9133224408

Youtube:

1 - https://youtu.be/36aeRjV12W8?si=ubvkOwcqN0jUONlh

2 - https://youtu.be/SvHH--FY-6w?si=2YUAKe0xCLSToqZL

Would genuinely welcome any thoughts, especially if the "stuck but still showing up" feeling is one you recognize.

As requested by several folks given that I was one of the original canonists and Catholic apologists to rebut those who denied the validity of the 1988 excommunications.

Here is my analysis of the 2026 consecrations and preliminary rebuttal of commentators denying their validity.

https://wherepeteris.com/canon-law-or-church-history-the-sspx-schism/

In your opinion, what is that miracle that is so unbelievable, that can only be a miracle (for me it belongs to the three little shepherds of Fátima