I was doing some wiki-crawling today and noticed that for quite a while, Western churches did not administer communion under both kinds to the laity. At some point, this seems to have become permitted and (my conception, perhaps wrong, is that) today, it is universal. When/how did this happen? Am I misinformed in some way? I've only gathered what I can cursorily, so any guidance on the topic would be much appreciated.

My 6th grader came home a few months back and told me that Adam and Eve were a 'myth' used to teach kids a lesson. I asking him where he heard that and he said his (6th grade) religion teacher (Catholic private school). I emailed his teacher who told me that she does indeed teach a non-historical and symbolic Adam per the Catechism. I am a Christian but not Catholic but this does not seem right. Catholics: would this upset you? If so, who would you contact if school admin just ignores you?

Hey guys! What is Ave Maria like irl? Is it super strict? I understand it’s a Catholic school, but as far as dress code and stuff. Also I’ve heard we can’t have cars- which feels like a ridiculous rumor. Can any students drop their experiences or day in the life there? Thank you guys!

I’ve been a pretty staunch atheist for the past few years, and still am, and If I’m being honest my views towards religion tend to be pretty negative, especially with Catholicism. However I must admit there is a part of me that at least finds the religion to be very fascinating. I’ve been browsing r/academicbiblical recently and have myself again interested and thinking about Christianity. However whenever I go on r/debatereligion or r/christianity or r/catholicism, or certain elements within the Church, I find myself again wanting be very distant from that. I don’t want my beliefs to be influenced by the behaviors and poor rationalizations of lay belivers but Id rather hear what the religion actually has to offer by people who onow what they are talking about so I would like to ask if you guys would recommend any more, I guess academically inclined for lack of a better term, books that argues in favor of Gods existence or the truth of Christianity?

The more research I do into the bible the more I feel worried about how similar it is to other religions. Like other religions early judaism wasn't entirely monotheistic, actually there were places like Egypt that attempted monotheism before it is recorded for Israel.

Also what do we make of religion in places like sumeria which existed ages before the israelites and early judaism? Also the bible shares terms and ideas from sumerian and other old peoples

Such as Sargon having a similar story to Moses about being put in a basket by a river as a child, the epic of gilgamesh sharing similarities to Noah and the flood.

As time goes on we see that more and more of the Old Testament is being doubted, from the exodus to the united Israelite monarchy to israelites just being a group of cannanites originally

Jesus is why I am still a believer but I keep having doubt as to a non believer he matches any typical cult leader of being charismatic and good at pleasing people to gain followers.

If the bible is like any other ancient text were some is mytho-history with a text that is very hard to understand without knowing that culture it was made in what makes it any different than other texts of other faiths?

I have seen studies about how when people in a doom cult have a doomsday that was predicted and it doesn't come that they will always rationalize in some way to keep believing

How can I still have faith without feeling like I am lying to myself? I've never had a spiritual experience of my own but I am open to the idea of them being true.

I have been reading discussion online about how Yahweh and the cannanite god el were fused together overtime by israelites. And they that they were originally different pagan gods.

The scholar who I saw that wrote about this is Mark Smith who is a catholic himself. This was surprising to me that he could still have faith after learning this. What do you make of it?

I would like to know how you have faith in the old testament because to me it seems very weak in reliability

We know that the exodus likely didn't happen

That the Israelites are just a segment of cananites and that Joshua probably didn't happen

That el and yahweh were separate foreign deities that the israelites merged together

That the patriarchs are likely fictional people

Stories such as the flood that are ahistorical and were taken as literal by early church fathers. And are seemingly copied from sumerian mythology.

Whether you are Jewish or Christian why do you have faith when scripture seems so flawed? I know that people say it's not a history book but it makes historical claims that are false?

Full disclaimer I am methodist but I have this nagging doubt over these things

I spend a lot of time lately reading on the r/academicbiblical and r/askbiblescholars because they seem to be more objective and knowledgeable than apologists. But I have been kind of saddened and depressed lately because to put it bluntly they do a good job at ripping any reliability of scripture to pieces. Some of the things I have learned are

Virgin birth likely didn't happen and was a narrative taken from elsewhere

Other things in the gospel that are much more likely literary devices than historical (herod's slaughter of infants and Jospeh and mary fleeing to Egypt, census by quirinus)

Many of the epistles are likely forgeries (not written by who they are credited to)

Gospel authors are likely different than who they are credited to

Jesus doesn't fill the messianic prophecies supposedly nor does he claim to be God

lots of the Old Testament is historically inaccurate

Gospel of John is extremely contradictory and historically inaccurate

What's your view on discrepancies such as this? I still have faith but I am going through a lot of doubt at the moment

https://mcgrath.nd.edu/online-courses/step/

Has anyone have experience taking or teaching these courses (quality of material, instruction quality)? I'm thinking of pursuing some formal education in religion/theology and this does appeal to me.

Hi everyone, I'm new here. I already have a bachelor's degree in Catholic theology, and I'd like to pursue an academic graduate degree in theology (that is, a research-oriented degree, not one with a pastoral focus as I am not going into ministry).

I've been researching theology programs in Canada, but I'm having trouble finding schools with faculty who specialise in my interests (patristics, theological history, christology/early Christian heresies).

Are there any academics here who attended a grad theology program in Canada? What did you like about your program? Do you have any recommendations for where I could start researching programs, or how I should go about selecting the best program that fits what I'm looking for?

I've tried other avenues (academic twitter, general academia reddit) but haven't had luck, and I don't know any people IRL who have graduate degrees in theology.

Thank you for whatever advice you can offer!

Hey all,

I stumbled upon this convo on YT. This is a great insightful conversation about the faith and at the end, they also touch on the role of the Catholic man. I subscribed to the hosts channel. You should too.

https://youtu.be/Bw9dIAeC6zQ

1. Name (only if you are comfortable with it),

2. Profession of Specified Field

3. What do you know about academic texts?

4. What particular academic text are you utilizing, and how are they useful in your chosen field?

You can type in the comments or send it through private message (pm)

Thanks for Your Time.

Hey fellow brothers in Christ,

I'm here to make a short post with the intention of inquiring into the admissions requirements of the Pontifical Gregorian University for international students. I know they have stuff on their website, but I was also curious as to when their admissions open up, and if they accept students under the age of 18. Could any of you help me with this? Thanks all.

Hey y'all, For academic purposes, I'm looking for famous (or less famous) cases of demonic possession in French around the revolution years, especially if they are somehow entangled with the events of the revolution. Thanks in advance!

I need Help with something. My Ma is Chinese and her family has been since before World War 1. However She has been saying prayers to a statue from China meant for some popular Mother Goddess. Her family has been doing that since the first generation converted to Catholicism where they buy statues of this particular Goddess and say Hail Mary to it........

Now I been saying the rosary for like younger than can remember and my mom has been doing it with me beside her before I even started speaking......................

I only recently discovered this as a Pagan Goddess If you know my Mom.......... She's almost impossible to change her mind with.

She sincerely believes that using this Pagan statue can work as a Lady of Sheshan one.....

I was having an idea of buying an actual Lady of Sseshan statue......... But not only are household models for personal use on a home book shelf practically impossible to find, but even the ones available are large heavy statues costing thousands to purchase and hundreds to ship. And from China.

So I am worried. If a Greek man for example started using a Hera statue for Novenas, would that be idolatry? Is my mom risking inviting demonic forces? s my family possible cursed from generations of using statues of this particular Goddess n Catholic practise?

I am desperate, I need help!

On a side note would buying a generic non-religious item like say a Barbie Doll or Anime Plush work as a substitute? I saw some gorgeous Porcelain dolls not intending or religious purposes but basically just a collector's item from a Chinese cultural heritage store that s dressed in I think Ming Dynasty clothes. Could that work as an alternative? My mom wants to buy one and even talked about using it as a Mary statue in n the alter because she's might give the Goddess statue to a poor relative who needs a Mary statue.

BTW my ma is insisting on her Chinese heritage so good luck with the typical blue-eyed brunette blue and white dress Mary statues found in most CHurches.

Advice on best Theology Baccalaureate.

I am graduating in law in the next months. I am meditating about my vocation. I recently have been thinking in going to Europe to get a undergraduate degree (baccalaureate degree) in Theology. However I do not know which institution is the best. I know Rome has some prestigious Pontifical universities, such as the Pontifical Gregorian University and St. Thomas Aquinas University, but I know there are many other universities that are not directly linked to the Vatican that are also prestigious, such as Spanish and French public universities. Can you explain the differences and the best options and why?

All the best!

I am a lifelong Catholic but I will list my objections to some Catholic “pronouncements”. I say this as a devoted Catholic in order to correct errors.

1. CCC1800 and 1790…

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

These two entries are not legitimate Catholic teaching. No Pope, Council or Encyclical has ever said these two entries. In fact, studied closely, they are anti-Catholic.

2. God’s “universal love” defined as “God loves everybody all the time no matter what”.

In 2,000 years, the Catholic Church has never defined this as a matter of Faith, yet it is bandied about like an old wives tail and I have heard all the so called justifications, but they don’t comport with reality. The Bible contains dozens of passages where God hates people.

3. The Catholic Church accepts Protestant Baptism when Protestant Baptism is not intended same as Catholic.

Trent said the intent must be the same to make Protestant baptism valid and it is not. I have read the Catholic “justification” and it is contradictory.

I will be interest in yours and will be glad to discuss mine. Thanks

I now quote the CCC from Vatican.va website:

CCC 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. (no footnotes, no documentation, no references, completely unsubstantiated).

CCC 1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. (no footnotes, no documentation, no references, completely unsubstantiated).

These two passages could easily be misunderstood as undeclared Catholic doctrine, since it contains two absolutist statements… [all] “human beings’ and “must” without any Pope, Encyclical, Church Counsel or Sacred Tradition as source. The CCC is not infallible and cannot declare doctrine on its own.

To the contrary:

“In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life”. DIGNITATIS HUMANAE #3. (obeying conscience is conditional upon coming to God)

"Conscience is not an independent and exclusive capacity to decide what is good and what is evil. VERITATIS SPLENDOR 60 (conscience cannot be made the complete and total arbiter of a person to decide what is good and what is evil)

“With this imagery, Revelation teaches that the power to decide what is good and what is evil does not belong to man, but to God alone. The man is certainly free, inasmuch as he can understand and accept God's commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat "of every tree of the garden". But his freedom is not unlimited: it must halt before the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil", for it is called to accept the moral law given by God”. VS #35 (man must accept the moral law given by God, rather than be subject to the idea that he must obey his conscience, because he does not have the power to decide what is good and evil).

"God willed to leave man in the power of his own counsel, so that he would seek his Creator of his own accord and would freely arrive at full and blessed perfection by cleaving to God". VS #38. (man is given his own internal “counsel” in order to cleave to God).

“When conscience, this bright lamp of the soul (cf. Mt 6:22-23), calls "evil good and good evil" (Is 5:20), it is already on the path to the most alarming corruption and the darkest moral blindness”. EV #24 (conscience can be corrupt and in the darkest moral blindness therefore is not to be obeyed)

“The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others” EV #71 (direct and complete rejection of any claims of respect of conscience of others who wrongly regard abortion).

“through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared with a hot iron” 1 Timothy 4:2 (obviously and quite apparently a person with a “seared” conscience should not follow his conscience.)

None of these three Encyclicals use the term “Primacy of Conscience” that I can find and nothing intimating it.

Conclusion:

The CCC should be rephrased to communicate ‘All humans must obey their conscience conditioned upon, and if, their conscience is properly formed.”

Addendum:

The CCC also omitted a critical item regarding the proper limitation of conscience:

“But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behavior as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever”. VS #67. (conscience is rejected completely when supporting intrinsic evil. The differentiation between invincible and invincible ignorance disappears when the resulting act is intrinsically evil i.e. abortion. The intrinsically evil actor will be judged as such).

I would have thought the “doctrine” of Primacy of Conscience would have been challenged long ago based on these quotes from these three Encyclicals and lack of Church endorsement.

Will I see anyone here at the conference in Notre Dame this coming weekend?

I am returning to teaching catechism, and am desiring to be certified as a catechist. A parish that I have taught at in the past gave me the link to an online catechist certification program run out of the University of Dayton. My diocese is partnered with them, which means that I get a steep discount on these courses. However, after looking at the sample lessons which use Sacred Scripture as their example, I am strongly considering not using this program. I have found what I am fairly certain to be a case of literal, textbook modernism of the sort condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane (especially proposition 20, 22, and 58) and Pascendi Dominici Gregis.

Here is one of the sample lessons which raised this question for me, with the seemingly offending sentence bolded:

Author: Margaret N. Ralph, PhD

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." (Gen. 1:1 )

These are the very first words in a great library of books which we call the Bible. They are some of the most well known words in all the world. Nearly everyone is familiar with the story of how God created the world, and how God created human beings, male and female, in God's own image.

While this story is extremely well known, it is also often misunderstood. On the strength of their understanding of this story, some Church leaders excommunicated Galileo, who said that the sun, not the earth, is the center of the movement of the planets. On the strength of their understanding of this story, some faith filled people have tried to get the Book of Genesis taught in the science classes of public schools as a way of arguing against Darwin's theory of evolution. When the story is misinterpreted, the truth, the revelation which the story contains, is lost.

What is this story about? What revelation is it teaching? Was the author inspired? Should we still be reading the story today as a source of wisdom and truth?

We will respond to these questions by doing an in-depth interpretation of the story. But first we will make sure that we know what we mean when we claim that the Bible, or a particular story or book in the Bible, is revelation, and that the author is inspired.

Revelation and Inspiration

When we claim that the Bible contains revelation, we are not claiming that it teaches the truth on every subject; we are claiming that it teaches the truth about God's nature, about our own nature, and about what God would have us do to build up God's kingdom rather than tear it down.

When we claim that the authors are inspired, we are not claiming that the authors had God's omniscient point of view and knew everything on every subject. Rather we are claiming that the authors had the gift of spiritual insight and so were able to see the meaning behind experiences and events. Inspired authors were able to verbalize the religious experiences of the people in such a way that the people's experiences have become revelatory for all of us.

As an aside, Galileo was not excommunicated. However, that last sentence about inspiration and revelation sounds like textbook modernism to me. Is that not vital immanence in action? But I'm not a theologian, I could be missing some perfectly legitimate nuance here.

Am I seeing things, or is this really as problematic as it seems?

Lately, I have been having doubts about how I can know that the Catholic faith is on a firm footing. I know that there are formal dogmas, which are immediately revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church. But I know that there are teachings which are merely doctrine, or which are material dogmas that have not been formally defined.

Now, I get the impression that anything which is not a formal dogma is not technically infallible and is therefore reformable. These teachings are binding and authoritative for Catholics, but the possibility of a wide swath of teachings (especially moral teachings) being reformable makes me feel insecure. I'm not a theologian, so I'm just going off of my uneducated half-knowlege here.

So, my question is basically, how can we say that dissenting liberal theologians who sought to change Church teachings in the 60's-80's, especially in moral matters, were wrong - were outside the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy in the strict sense? On what basis do we say that they are wrong to even hold these dissenting views? I suppose that it would be a matter of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, but I want to know how I can trust that something which was a sin yesterday really and truly will not be declared permissible tomorrow.

Can someone more knowledgeable help me? I feel like I need more theologically educated answers than I would get on the Catholicism subreddit.

The modernist heresy and everything surrounding it fascinates me. Are there any books, journal articles, and other resources which can give me a deeper familiarity with it beyond Pascendi, Lamentibilli, and the Oath Against Modernism? I have watched William Marshner's lecture on the topic, and yet I crave more.

I am also aware of the book Defending the Faith: An Anti-Modernist Anthology. Online resources are preferred, but print suggestions are fine.

Long story short, I have been feeling a pull towards dogmatic theology, but am not sure how to get into graduate school to get into this field. I have a BA in history with a minor in philosophy from a secular state school, and my GPA is not the greatest - it is around 2.8. This is because I greatly struggled with math and science early in my college years, while I did rather well in liberal arts classes, so my grades balanced each other out. My understanding is that many grad schools would like at least a 3.0 GPA, so I would have to find a way to get this up - maybe by completing the few classes needed to turn my minor into a major?

My second consideration is the sort of school I would go to. I want an orthodox education that is rigorous. For the record, I'm a big fan of neo-scholastic theology and manualism (though I recognize that it has deficiencies), but I also appreciate the orthodox members of the nouvelle théologie for their attempt to recapture the drama of salvation.

I have heard good things about the orthodoxy of Holy Apostles College, but I have also read on Reddit that their courses were not the most challenging. I also have learned that Christendom College has a reputation for orthodoxy and rigor, and that one can even piddle around as a casual student while earning credits towards a degree. That sounds appealing for me at the moment.

Third, is cost. When I was considering grad school for history, the head of my school's department told me not to go unless the school paid for it. Now, I don't know how it is with theology, but I imagine that it would be similar. I did check out the price of Holy Apostles College, and it seems surprisingly affordable.

I also have heard that different schools have different reputations and levels of marketability in theology. Also, that demand for certain flavors of theologians rises and falls with the tide, and that one's school has an effect on this.

Any advice is appreciated.

Is the full Vatican Council II available in hardcover? (Austin Flannery ed preferable)

Hello. I'm entertaining the idea of possibly obtaining an advanced degree related to religion, and one of the programs that are on my list is Notre Dame's master's in theology (part-time, hybrid online). Before I even apply to any programs I plan on teaching catechism classes for a couple of years. If I do pursue a degree the main purpose is to enrich myself, intellectually and spiritually, with the secondary byproduct of being a better catechist.

With that said, does anyone have experience, first or second hand, of Notre Dame's theology program? I've read a couple of positive posts about it but they have been short and fleeting, and do not give much insight to the student experience and whether or not it was "*worth it."

*This program is mostly self-funded.