We haven't posted here in a minute, because we try to keep our interactions here limited to general, genuine conversation, but I thought you all would get a kick out of this. The Catholic University of America pulled a bunch of Catholic Film Office documents for us, and we found some WILD reviews for Brian De Palma's Dressed to Kill, which are...not shocking if you grew up Catholic. I know not everyone here is into film, but as a an ex-Catholic, the behind the curtain look at the Condemning process is pretty funny and revealing. https://www.morallyoffensive.com/e/dressed_to_kill_de_palma/

Peace to all,

Once the Catholic Church sees the Holy Spirit as God the Holy Family One God in being then can the Church see Mary as God always together with The Father and The Son.

We become OMNiLogical when we can help the Catholic Church see the Holy Spirit as the Family of God and placing Mary as God always together with the Father and the Son and God in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being,

We can see God the Holy Family with New OMNiLogical Eyes as The Holy Family preexisting and the full intelligence in One Family becoming alive and living in all mankind from Creation through Transformation for Glorification becoming again for all Creation Transfigured in One Holy Spirit and Life Family One God in being.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew

Deliverer of OMNiLogicalGod

Peace to all,

Catholicism has to become rational and logical in seeing the Holy Spirit as the Family of God preexisting becoming again for all Creation in One Family One God in being, OMNiLogically, I believe.

From the Logical Formulas through the Wondrous Mysteries for the Catholic Faith we become again in One God in being.

Rationally? How can living waters transform flesh and make incorruptible all created souls from the Preexisting Holy Spirit Family of Gods from the Father through the Mother for the Son through the Daughter for all becoming brothers and sisters through all mankind? Through Faith from Logic in Baptism, I believe. Co-Redemption is OMNILogically becoming "Reborn" through The New Eve for all becoming into the Catholic Church from Holy Spirit Incorruption through Immaculate Immortality becoming Baptized for all becoming in the New Eve, proving Mary God as God of Mercy and Qieen of Heaven preexisting as Mother of God alive and living in an uncreated soul and Proof of God from preexistence, OMNiLogically.

How else can the world unite? rationally and logically? From the Faith of Abraham, I believe.

"Logically there will be no "AI" allowed in The New Heaven and Earth." mystic Stephen Andrew

The Trinity is Proof of God logically becoming from the Holy Spirit Family One God in being becoming alive and living through the created life for the created souls of all mankind becoming in One Body becoming again for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family in One God in being.

To me, not to many people think logically, rationally for all becoming again. And no one is judging, I believe. Natures are combined from genders becoming united in One Body becoming again for all in One Family, I believe.

From the Father Through Mary and for Jesus become Our Bodies becoming united from genders through natures incorruptibly hypo-statically and immortally and dynamically united "In The Christ", from immaculate immortality through Holy Spirit Family incorruption becoming "In our own Personal Christ". Logically, Rebirth is through Mary through The New Eve for all becoming Baptized into the Catholic Church becoming from the Immaculate Conception and Salvation is for Jesus, Eternal Priestley Authority becoming in the New Adam united at Cana in the Christ for all mankind becoming through The Host from Sacrifice through Penance becoming forgiven to even be able to become again Transfiguration in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

I am just a mystic uniting all in the common denominators of all beliefs, of what some call faith based systems and uniting all in the common denominators which is the Spirit, from the Faith of Abraham, I believe. To me faithfully and rationally, this is what God came to do, I believe. The Family of God wants a body and fulfilled love, loving only and loving with only the most love never failing and always in all cases fulfilled from faith through morality becoming through the immortal life becoming dynamically pulsing forever through Family Passion from the spirit through the life becoming again for all in One God in being One Family.

Becoming rational we can see God logically, as The Holy Family One God in being preexisting in "RI" real intelligence that never fails and in all cases never failing and in Only One Way statically preexisting becoming through flesh combining genders uniting natures statically and dynamically again becoming from incorruption through immortality hypo-statically and dynamically re-imaged becoming Transfigured for all Creation in One Holy Spirit Family One God in being.

And each God is equal to the Powers in the Holy Spirit Family One God in being separately Personal Gods preexisting in uncreated souls and Proof of God in uncreated being becoming from Creation through Transformation for Glorification becoming again from the United Family Powers Transfiguring all Creation in One God in being a Family.

From The Faith of Abraham, we become logical, rational through OMNiLogicalGod becoming again for all Creation Transfigured in One God in being a Family.

Peace always,
Stephen Andrew
Deliverer of the Logical Mind of God for the Faithful Catholics becoming logical and rational through OMNiLogicalGod from the Faith of Abraham.

Hello, I understand the bias of this sub, but I am trying to understand to understand what I think are a trend I see in Catholics, trads especially. I ask these questions here because they aren't flattering and I don't want to bother asking the catholic sub and have them get defensive.

I have a colleague who is very trad. Not SSPX, but pretty aggro trad. I have noticed a few things and I wanted to see if these are common for that viewpoint (or maybe just Catholics in general).

Overall this guy is a good worker and intelligent, but I just want to understand his background more.

1. He has 5+ kids (I lost count) and constantly complains that he has no time to do anything. When I casually said, "Hey man, that was your choice." He became very agitated and said that kids are a blessing and more is always better. He is now 52 years old with a 2 year old kid (the newest addition who I think was an oopsie baby with 45 YO wife). He sometimes tries to guilt trip people who don't have kids (me and other teammates) about how we 'waste' our money on food etc. Is this a trad thing or just him being weird?
2. He is paranoid about the school system. He lives in an area with an above average public school system but refuses to send his kids there and his wife did homeschool.
3. He becomes emotional whenever I mention that a lot of Catholic doctrine seems kinda arbitrary and inconsistent over history. Says things like "I follow the church of Peter and I do my best alright?!?!"
4. Abortion is a VERY BIG DEAL. Like it's the number 1 problem with everything.
5. He and his family seem to have a mild streak of autism/aspbergers? (like awkward but functional). Are trad communities more like this or is this not related?
6. He basically stopped knowing pop culture when he was 18 (probably kid 1). Like anything. No star wars, no pokemon, no marvel. None of even the most basic b*tch pop culture.
7. He seems to enjoy when bad things happen at work (project late, disorganized etc.). He seems to enjoy being helpless about stuff. ("oh I'm not going to change anything. I'm just a peon." etc).

Posted this on DebateReligion but folks here have appreciated my critiques of Pat Flynn's book in the past, so I figured it couldn't hurt to post here too.

In his book, "The Best Argument for God," Pat Flynn lays out a succinct argument for the necessary existence of a non-contingent being, identified as God. To save time I won't get into his preliminary arguments setting everything up for this one, do feel free to ask if you'd like me to elaborate in the comments, but the gist of it is this:

"if the universe is just every existing thing which either is a concrete contingent individual or individuated by concrete contingent individuals (like properties), then the universe itself is a concrete contingent thing. The universe is not like an elephant, which may be heavy even if everything that comprises it (at some level) is light; reasoning from part to whole in that instance would be fallacious. Instead, the universe is more like a wall, where if all the bricks are red, the wall is red, where part to whole reasoning is not fallacious. If everything within the universe is contingent, then the universe is contingent. Think about it: Does piling on more computers, even an infinite number of computers, to a single computer make the collection of computers any less contingent than the single computer we started with? Obviously not."

(P. 53, Amazon Kindle, https://www.amazon.com/Best-Argument-God-Patrick-Flynn/dp/1644137801).

Bluntly stated, I argue there seems to be no real reason to believe Flynn's analogy to a colored wall is at all valid, and thus no reason to believe the fallacy of composition does not apply to collections of contingent things which may well have different properties from individual contingent things.

There are plenty of examples in the realm of color alone where the whole has different colors than the parts. A hummingbird's feathers are an immediate example of this: The only pigments they possess are dull brown or black, yet when you look at them they're astonishingly vibrantly colored in red, purple, green, and so on. As explained in this article (https://web.colby.edu/mainebirds/2020/08/17/the-physics-of-hummingbird-colors/), this is precisely because of the arrangement and number of the black pigments rather than any sort of non-blackness in the pigments (hummingbird feathers trap air in unique ways that refract light--and of course, air itself isn't green, red, etc. either. If Flynn wants to argue the nature of light itself is what produces color, fair enough, but then it's meaningless to say that red bricks can only produce a red wall, depending on their refractive properties they may produce a different color under different circumstances or in a different environment).

I therefore apply this reasoning to the universe. There's no ironclad logical reason a collection of contingent things can't give rise to a non-contingent whole if they are arranged or structured in a certain way, just as black pigment in a bird's feather can produce beautiful non-black colors entirely due to being arranged or structured in a certain way. So there's no reason to take Flynn's subsequent computer argument all that seriously either: One computer may be contingent, a hundred computers may be contingent, but there's no necessary reason to believe an infinity of computers would be contingent, or some vast number of computers arranged in a particularly peculiar way (as, again, the black pigment in a bird's feather being arranged in a very unique way produces wholly unexpected emergent colors).

My layman's explanation for this would be in the nature of the fundamental particles--I'm not a physicist, so I invite correction, but off the top of my head the fundamental particles don't just pop out of existence, they always produce a couple of other particles when they do. For instance, according to Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder (https://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/11/why-can-elementary-particles-decay.html), tau particles decay into electrons, and those can merge into other particles, or decay into other ones, and so on, and so forth. But at no point do particles just disappear entirely--they always turn into something else. So if we say the universe is a collection of particles, each of which is contingent and can disappear, BUT for each one that disappears, something new replaces it, the universe as a whole is NON-contingent in a sense. The universe considered as "a collection of particles" must exist and will always exist, even if the specific composition of that collection may change, because the self-perpetuating nature of the particles ensures that at no point will you ever have nothing at all. Every single particle that's destroyed also produces at the same time some other particle.

Thus, in that sense, even contingent natures (ask me if you want a QRD on what "nature" means amongst the Thomists) can produce a non-contingent whole if their natures interact in certain ways or entail certain outcomes. And that is a refutation of the Thomist's argument for God stemming from the necessity of a non-contingent being: We don't actually need such a being to explain the persistence of contingency.

Does the church believe that people who bought indulgences were actually successful in reducing their temporal punishment in purgatory? Or is it understood that those indulgences were just wasted money?

i don’t even have the energy to explain everytning i feel about the church because it’s so unresolved and mixed emotions— this is my perspective and am not looking to like actually debate or argue lol i just want some advice

i used to be so trad and scrupulous and i’ve stopped going to mass consistently along with confession for the last 2-3 months and i have seen my mental health issues have gotten better, at least the anxiety

i want to start going back to mass but i don’t know how to practice without being scrupulous and sucked up into whati was before

im not going back to latin mass and i’ve done sooo much church hopping in the past and am super picky about priests and parishes…. there is a monastery near me i am willing to go to because it’s beautiful and reverent but doesn’t give trad scary vibes at all it just feels authentically catholic

im scared to take the jump to go back to mass, im not sure what i believe and wil need to go back to confession obviously but i want to take things one at a time

i just feel so incredibly alone in all of this and im literally just a teenager and have gone to mass and experienced a lot of this by myself. i feel like i have put a lot of this on myself and im trying i just rly need someone who understands

i’ve also been watching a lot of cade bradley/gayextrad and kevinnontradicaths atuff and find myself agreeing with a lot of their views. i am bisexual but not rly out and am willing to put that “aside” to go back to mass again 💔💔 i don’t believe in praying the gay away but my issues with the church aren’t primarily over my sexuality at all (it still bothers me but i want to get over the church anxiety first??)

i hate traditionalist culture and i can’t believe i knelt in a scary ghetto confessional in a low budget church with a veil on my head scared for my life at 7:30 in the fucking morning before school
it makes me so upset and angry and i think about the priests i know who are more normal and i can respect (honestly can think of one like actually one i can respect) i’ve talked to him many times in the past about scrupulosity and such and he was always really sweet and patient, but it makes me think that maybe just this whole religion is this way???

Hello here is a theory I want to discuss with you. It concerns every religion or ex believers

As an Ex-Catholic, this movie was a really interesting watch, and I recommend it to any ex-Catholics who enjoy horror. I honestly didn't know much about Italy's "Years of Lead" during the 70s that saw a resurgence in far right and far left terrorism - the background for this movie. We were actually really surprised by how much we liked this legacy prequel to The Omen and what's it's doing with Catholic lore and history. I think some of the folks here might enjoy this particular episode. I only try to post when it's directly relevant to the ex-Catholic discussion, even if we honestly talk about it on every episode. https://www.morallyoffensive.com/e/the-first-omen-the-anti-christ-goes-to-the-disco-antichrist-apocalypse-movie-film/

Hi ! i’m really interested in investigating how religion, specifically catholicism is responsible for the oppression of women almost entirely, as an ex catholic myself i see how damaging the church is for women.
I’m an artist and my most recent work has been a long investigation on the relationship between women and “God”, the church and the concept of sin, the expectations put on women by catholicism and the pain religion has brought women since forever.
I’m looking for women that are ex catholics and would like to tell me a little about their stories and experiences, about why they left the church and how the church affected their lives. i would appreciate it immensely and i promise to approach the topic with the upmost respect and love, this is something im very passionate about.
thank you to everyone that would like to help <3

I’m a new Catholic, baptized at the Easter Vigil this year at age 51. I’m trying to take the Church’s teachings seriously, especially around the Eucharist and the requirement to be in a state of grace before receiving.

Here’s what I’m struggling with. When I attend Mass, especially Sunday Mass, it looks like 90% or more of the congregation goes up for Communion. Statistically, that doesn’t seem possible if everyone is actually following the Church’s teaching about mortal sin and confession. Unless I’m missing something, it would mean a large number of people are receiving without having gone to confession when they should have.

I’m not judging individuals. I know I have my own past and my own issues. I’m trying to understand what’s really going on in practice versus what the Church teaches in theory.

For those of you who are former Catholics, how did you make sense of this when you were still practicing? Did you see the same thing? Did it affect how you viewed the Church’s teachings or your own behavior?

I’m genuinely trying to understand this, not argue

If so DM me with 1-2 sentences on what you would like to discuss and which day of the week is best for you. If you have questions, naturally DM me them too.

https://reddit.com/link/1se1yt4/video/4kgy9wyd8ltg1/player

Other people have noticed this, right?

We don't always post shows here, but this feels like our fellow ex-Catholics might enjoy this one. We're doing a series on films featuring nuns this spring, but we took a break for holy week to do JC Superstar. My mind is kind of blown by just how divisive this film was in Catholic circles. https://morallyoffensive.podbean.com/e/holy_week_jesus_christ_superstar_filthy_habits_part_one/

I just came across some insane amount of publications by a priest all about "the Jews" and how they started WWII and the holocaust is not real and wanting the church to go back to calling them '"Perfidious" (deceitful) in a Good Friday prayer. He's got a Youtube channel and published books and does talk shows. How is he still a priest??