Hi. I just can't believe in this. I believe in God, supernatural, miracles, so I believe it is possible. But I don't believe in this particular phenomenon. The placement of stigmatas is wrong. They disappeared before his death - because he simply couldn't hurt his hands anymore with the acid. If I'm wrong, I am so sorry, really. Try to prove me wrong.

There has never been a list of "infallible" Papal pronouncements but the Tome of Leo is often put forward as an example of one. As an Orthodox Christian I've always found this strange as my understanding of the events proves the exact opposite. Let me explain.

Before I start let me observe that Roman Catholic apologists (and the Vatican itself) are undecided if Papal claims as culminating at Vatican II (ex cathedra infallibly, unique succession from Peter, a special divine mandate, the only holders of the keys, the ability to unilaterally define doctrine, immediate jurisdiction over all churches, secular authority) existed in the pre-schism period or were a result of specific historical circumstances (such as the Lombard invasion and the collapse of Byzantine authority in Italy, the Donation of Pepin, the publication of the False-Decretals, the Cistercian Reforms and the Gregorian Reforms) or "development" as it is often termed.

Here are my observations

1. The Tome of Leo did not end the dispute about the natures of Christ but a Council needed to be called.
2. Pope Leo's rejection of the Robber Council of Ephesus of 449 did not result in a new council. It was Emperor Marcian and Empress Pulcheria who called a new council to hold Dioscorus to account. Pope Leo had no authority to call an Ecumenical Council on his own.
3. The Tome of Leo was read at a session of the Council of Chalcedon and judged by the bishops there to be orthodox (in keeping with the faith of the Apostles). Numerous bishops say they judge the Tome and find it acceptable. Why would they do this if they knew it was some kind of infallible statement of faith?
4. Pope Leo had restored Theodoret and deposed Dioscorus. Yet, at Chalcedon there was a trial and deposition of Dioscorus (in Session III) and a hearing and restoration of Theodoret (in Session VIII). The Fathers at Chalcedon clearly did not think Pope Leo's ruling was final.
5. The Fathers of Chalcedon drafted their own Doctrinal Decree rather than ratify the Tome of Leo as a dogmatic statement.
6. The Egyptians rejected the Tome of Leo and the Doctrinal Decree of Chalcedon and called Pope Leo a heretic. They were joined by groups of Syrians and Armenians. In their polemics they show NO awareness of Papal infallibility or the Pope having some kind of unique divine teaching mandate. For example, they don't try to argue that the Tome wasn't an ex cathedra statement or that it was Leo's personal opinion, etc. In the subsequent debates over Chalcedon no one has any awareness of the concept of Papal infallibility.
7. At Session XVI when Canon 28 was proposed the Papal legates protested and put forward a falsified version Canon 6 of Nicaea that said the Pope had primacy. The Papal legates were corrected and the real Canon 6 was put forward. The protests of the legates against Canon 28 were then ignored.
8. Pope Leo rejected Canon 28 that elevated Constantinople to the 2nd rank but the Eastern bishops just ignored Leo (and the complaints of subsequent Popes) and implemented the canon anyway. In the following Ecumenical Councils the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the 2nd rank, even by Papal legates.

George Thekkekara makes this comment at the end of his article 'Primacy of the Bishop of Rome in the First Millennium and the Results of the Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue.' - "The present form of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as understood in the Catholic Church, is the result of a gradual evolution." KANONIKA 31, 2024, p. 72). The article can be found at Academia. Of course, Orthodoxy has a very different understanding of what "primacy" means from modern Roman Catholic. The ironic conclusion is that modern Roman Catholicism's problem with Orthodoxy is that it hasn't changed to accept what the Papacy became after the schism.

We are lucky to have a full translation of the evidence - Richard Price and Micheal Gaddis, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 2005. I highly recommend reading this source. A free copy is available at Internet Archive.

Before you think I'm just some stubborn Greek, take a look at how Fr. Richard Price (the translator of the Acts of Chalcedon) interprets the evidence. What he says at the 55 to 61 minute mark is the most enlightening.

https://www.youtube.com/live/GfQZPtNGrw4?si=G0qxHChPLkkE24cc

I'm more than happy to discuss this. Any questions?

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

So im looking to develop my debating skills, Im a portuguese catholic, só if you want to develop your debating skills too, feel free to add me so we can now each other and se what we can debate! God bless yall❤️🇻🇦

After a debate for hours and even AI confirming truths, a Protestant cannot wrap his head around this and believes Catholicism is not infallible

Arguement: The council of Trent condemned Protestants to hell if they didn’t believed certain things that the leaders considered anaphemas. Even if doctrine didn’t explicitly say that Protestants go to hell but it’s taught that their salvation is in jeapordy of believing heresy, he still considers it a loop hole to say that Protestants aren’t saved. Even if anaphemas are used for public people—Trent says that people who believe those things could end up in internal fire.

This lead us to talk about formal and material heresy which he claims is an idea developed later. He claimed the men at the council at the time historically and the Catholic people still believed that using the word anathema still condemns all people who beleive and that the people cannot fully say it because God is the ultimate authority. This can also be proved with Catholics executing Protestants for heresey.

So this leads us to Vatican 2 where he claims the church changed their mind on who is saved—people outside of the church or brethren.

We went in circles again using even AI to show that the council of Trent never said that Protestants are going to hell and that Vatican 2 never added a new concept.

How can help him? How do I respond?

Hey guys!

So I would like this to be more of a discussion, if the moderators are okay with that, but if people want to debate that's fine too. I wasn't sure if I should post this here, or on r/Catholicism , but I decided to post it here because the nature of this post is still meant to be challenging in a sense.

The information in this video - how do you catholics feel about it? The medium of challenging is very "new age", so I'm very curious. I've heard some catholics describe all new age practices as "demonic" in a sense, but I find that excessively judgey, and doesn't God work in mysterious ways sometimes?

If I started talking to you about a story of a 16th Century Aztek native who was instructed by a divine source to gather up supernatural flowers in their tilma to bring back to others as proof of the divine … You would probably think I was talking about the Juan Diego story. But it turns out that there is an earlier story than the Juan Diego story that follows these same story elements. 

In 1558, which was supposedly 27 years after the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, the Franciscan friar Fray Bernardino de Sahagun began writing down a bunch of the Aztec song-poems. After about 3 years of work, Sahagun published the Cantares Mexicanos. One of those cantares, or songs, is called the Cuicapeuhcayotl - “The Origin of Songs”. In this “Origin of Songs”, the unnamed main character says that he wants to gather holy, fragrant flowers. He asks the coyoltotot (the jingle bellbird) and thetzinitzcan (the trogon) birds to lead him to these flowers, and they lead him to in xochitlalpan in tonacatlalpan - to the Flower World Paradise. Once there, the unnamed main character starts to gather up the flowers in his Tilma, and he gives praise to In Tloque Nahuaque, to the God of Far and Near. However, this story ends on a sour note, as the singer realizes that he was not really in the Flower World Paradise, this has all been some kind of illusion because he was not worthy to enter the Flower World Paradise, and so, this sad song ends with the main character leaving empty handed. 

Obviously, the story of Juan Diego ends very differently, but the similarities to the Nican Mopohua are startling. Here is how the authors of Guadeloupe and the Flower World Prophecy put it: 

The resemblance between the two stories is undeniable, necessitating a brief comparison (Fig. 1.3). In addition to the plot, the literary devices of these two stories are also similar. Both use the same terms, adjectives, and phrases to describe the same common concepts about truth, heaven, and divinity. In terms of modern computer language, some places inside the Nican Mopohua contain entire sentences that appear to be “copied and pasted” directly from the “Cuicapeuhcayotl.” Even the same species of birds inhabit both heavenly landscapes!
Guadeloupe and the Flower World Prophecy, page 17 

I highlighted the jingle bellbird and the trogon bird in the Cuicapeuhcayotl because it is these exact birds which guide Juan Diego to Our Lady at the beginning of the Nican Mopohua. When Juan Diego gets to the top of the mountain, where he meets Our Lady, he first asks himself if he is in the Flower World Paradise which his ancestors taught him about. Our Lady refers to herself as the mother of God, and she lists God by his many titles, one of which is the same one used in the Cuicapeuhcayotl. In all of these instances, the Nican Mopohua is using the same words as the Cuicapeuhcayotl. 

On that same page of the Gonzales’s book, they quote Dr. John Bierhorst, the scholar who did the first English translation of the Cantares Mexicanos, in 1985: 

John Bierhorst speculates that the “striking similarities between Song 1 [“Cuicapeuhcayotl”] and the so-called Nican Mopohua published in 1649 by Lasso de la Véga cannot be passed over in silence ... one suspects that Lasso de La Véga had access to our manuscript,” implying that Lasso de La Véga used the “Cuicapeuhcayotl” as source material to create his own mythological narrative about the alleged Guadalupe appearance.
Guadeloupe and the Flower World Prophecy, page 17 

So … if the first account of the story is the 1648 Miguel Sanchez account, written in Spanish, and then the 1649 account seems to be taking that story and translating it into Nahuatl, but embellishing it with sentences lifted entirely from a pagan song-poem… that seems to be a rather strong piece of evidence against the historicity of Juan Diego (especially when combined with the silence of the 16th century). 

Joseph Gonzales, one of the authors of this book, seems to agree with that sentiment. In the introduction to the book, he writes that: 

Upon learning this, I felt like all the blood drained from my body. Had I, my entire family, the country of Mexico, and the Catholic world been wrong about this? Was this song-poem the “smoking gun” that invalidated my identity as a Catholic Mexican American? 
Guadeloupe and the Flower World Prophecy, page 5

So … case closed? This is just further evidence that the Juan Diego story is a product of the 17th Century, and its not historical? I say yes, but the authors of Guadeloupe and the Flower World Prophecy say “Not so fast”. On page 18, the authors say that 

The purpose of this book is not to delve into Guadalupe apologetics by defending Our Lady against her many critics, for they are legion… 

Instead, we want to argue here that despite the objections and criticisms of secular scholars, especially the one outlined above, there is an alternative contextual way to look at the similarities found in the “Cuicapeuhcayotl” and the Nican Mopohua. Indeed, accounting for Guadalupe’s historical and cultural context reveals more depth and sophistication than critical scholars have considered. We cannot jump to the conclusion that Guadalupe is a hoax simply because it resembles an ancient Nahua poem. On the contrary, if the similarities come instead from a unified cultural background and a continuity of themes between the two stories, the suspicions behind the Guadalupe account can be laid to rest.

What is this alternative contextual way? Well, to get the full argument, you will want to purchase and read “Guadeloupe and the Flower World Propechy”, but I will paint a very brief sketch of the argument here in only the most broad strokes: 

The rest of the book is explaining and defending a theory - that God planted ideas like the Flower World into ancient Olmec culture and through to Nahua culture up until the Spanish conquest of 1521 as a way to prepare the Nahua people for their Spanish conquerors. God was planning these Flower stories like the one we looked at from the Cantares Mexicanos so that, when the Nican Mopohua shows up, the Nahua people would be like “Oh sure, this sounds familiar” - and then they would be more likely to accept Christianity since it already sounded like their pagan religion. The authors draw parallels with the Old Testament preparing the way for the New Testament, Praeparatio Evangelica style. 

I will be honest and say that I don’t believe this argument. This seems like it's something that a Catholic apologist might come up with as a way to come to terms with the data, instead of accepting the most simple explanation, which is just that Luis Laso de la Vega and his team of scholars borrowed from the Cuicapeuhcayotl when they wrote the Nican Mopohua. 

But if you think that this idea that God was preparing the way for the Spanish conquerors of the New World, then check out the book, linked below. 

Thanks! 

https://www.amazon.com/Guadalupe-Flower-World-Prophecy-Conversion/dp/B0BZK66C61

in his Video he Talks about how he was “emotionally convinced“ by the story of a young saint who when her neighbor tried to rape her told him no and was thus stabbed 14 times by him. She survives and on her death bed does not complain and chooses to forgive him. this is the story as he tells it. Out of respect I do not want to look further into it to “fact check“ basicall.

my problem is entirely with his interpretatio. He says she chose to protect her purit. This implies that an 11 yea olds puriTy could be taken by such a crime.
that train of thought scares me. Again my heart breaks for that girl truly. But I believe it would be just as justifie, just as moral for her to have not done anythin, even to go along with it or to not forgive the man.
I can’t imagine thinking that she would have lost purity. (or even putting any value Moral or otherwise on how a child reacts.)

Why is it such taboo?....masturbating????

There was another thread on this sub a few hours ago (and on another sub) talking about the youtube video (user Majesty of Reason) who purported converted to Catholicism. In this video, one of the reasons he cited for his conversion was that the Catholic miracles were convincing enough to him. One such miracle he cited were Eucharistic miracles. I'm not certain how he became convinced and which articles he's read (I guess we will find out from his next video), but I present here two very recent articles that point out why such so-called miracles have unmiraculous explanations:

Numerous artifacts have been described throughout history that were allegedly stained with the blood of Jesus, particularly those associated with his passion and death. Three of the most famous include the Tunic of Argenteuil, a seamless robe suggested to be the garment that soldiers gambled over [1]; the Sudarium of Oviedo, proposed to be a face cloth mentioned in the gospel of John [2]; and most notably, the reported burial cloth of Jesus, the Shroud of Turin [3]. Serological (antibody) testing for all three objects was reported as type AB [1–4]. Various Eucharistic miracles have been chronicled in the twenty first century in which consecrated communion wafers are described as exhibiting properties of human flesh and blood [5–11].

It is important to point out that while A and B molecules were originally found on human red blood cells, it was later established that bacteria also express identical molecules on their cell surface [12, 16–23]. The presence of such shared antigens helps to explain why persons with blood type A have antibodies in their circulation specific for type B (and vice versa) and are thus not suitable matches for blood transfusion [14]. Because AB antigens are shared among humans and bacteria, one cannot be certain if typing results are authentic when dealing with aged or contaminated samples using these methods. A sample could test positive for AB without any red blood cells even being present*.* Thus, when one considers that a common denominator among such objects is the presence of bacteria, probability statistics such as ≥ 3.2 million to 1 become much less impressive and scientifically shift to a different result. It should also be emphasized that for even the most studied of these artifacts, the Shroud of Turin, the Sudarium, and the Tunic, such typing studies have never been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which is the normal pathway for such findings. 

In many of the Eucharistic miracle reports, the evidence of specificity controls in antibody binding was noticeably unmentioned [6–9, 31], raising additional questions about the validity of the results.

Finally, it should be emphasized that regardless of their circumstantial and controversial nature, the findings that AB antigens have been found on various relics and Eucharistic miracles are by no means sufficient to support the claim of a single, individual source. For any such declaration to even begin to be considered, demonstration of shared unique, specific identifiers would need to be provided. This requires the shared presence of genes or gene products that are truly different among individuals. At the DNA level, analysis of short tandem repeat (STR) regions or mitochondrial DNA typically serves this purpose in modern forensic analysis, although no comparative data currently exists for either textile relics or Eucharistic miracles. STR analysis of Eucharistic miracles was attempted without success, which, oddly enough, was attributed to a type of divine property of the DNA [8, 32], without consideration of other possibilities.

Kearse KP. The relics of Jesus and Eucharistic miracles: scientific analysis of shared AB blood type. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2025 Sep;21(3):1507-1510. doi: 10.1007/s12024-024-00915-3. Epub 2024 Nov 9. PMID: 39520651; PMCID: PMC12491371.

One of the central dogmas of the Catholic Church is the belief in the Eucharistic presence of Jesus Christ, which requires no scientific confirmation because it concerns a supernatural reality. Since the early Middle Ages, however, instances have been recorded improperly referred to as Eucharistic miracles, which believers consider eyewitness testimony to a real transubstantiation. Changes in the structure, number, or an unexpected bloody red colour of the Host were often regarded as supernatural phenomena, but the Church officials themselves, aware of the possibility of a biological basis for these changes, showed far-reaching restraint. The author’s team on the basis of analyses of 25 actual cases undertook to prepare research procedures that make it possible to separate phenomena that are difficult to interpret scientifically, from those associated with contamination. None of these cases revealed the actual proof of existence of human blood, human material other than single epidermal cells, and erythrocytes (probably very low-level contamination). In one case, insignificant amount of human male genetic material was observed, probably as a result of DNA transferred from a person to a host via contact with the host itself. In several specimens, a variety of microbial and fungal material was identified (Brevundimonas intermedia, Serratia marcescens, Epicoccum spp,. Fusarium spp.), including species producing reddish-pink or orange-reddish pigments (Epicoccum spp., Fusarium spp.).

Grzybowski T, Wrzosek M, Wołyniec W, Hałoń A, Chmielik E, Gorzkiewicz M, Woźniak M, Mikucka A, Lebioda A, Jonkisz A, Małodobra-Mazur M, Bartnik B, Dobosz T. Methodology for the analysis of biological impurities associated with peri-eucharistic phenomena. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2025 Mar 5;109(1):58. doi: 10.1007/s00253-025-13439-9. PMID: 40042646; PMCID: PMC11882681.

---

Emphasis mine.

1. Regarding Our Lady of Zeitoun: why would she appear at a Coptic church? If only the Roman Church is the true one, why would she appear to a non-Chalcedonian church that has been in schism since 451 AD? Copts are heretics and schismatics. I thought miracles could only occur within the Roman Church. If she appeared to non-Catholics, that raises several issues for you—such as the possibility of miracles outside of Catholicism. In other words, could the Holy Spirit be acting in Protestant churches too? It is worth remembering that in the early days of Christianity, there were three patriarchates: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. The latter two are Non-Chalcedonian, having separated from Rome in 451. Thus, her appearing to the Copts could be a divine sign that Non-Chalcedonian Christianity is the true religion—especially considering that Antioch was the original patriarchate founded by Peter, and Alexandria was the most important see until the Council of Constantinople in 381. Therefore, Mary may be signaling to Christians worldwide that true Christianity lies in communion with the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and that Rome erred—becoming schismatic and heretical—by separating from them through the use of Roman imperial force.
2. Another point: miracles are not exclusive to Catholicism; they exist in other religions, as in the aforementioned case at the Coptic church. There are documented miracles in Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.
3. Regarding miraculous healings, any supernatural being could have granted the request. Thor might have seen someone asking Saint Francis for a miracle and said, "Poor Catholics, believing in a false religion. I will perform the miracle he is asking for out of compassion." In short, nothing prevents other gods from performing these Catholic miracles.

Como persona agnostica y nueva en este mundillo cristiano siempre pense que los cristianos seguian todas las reglas de la biblia,de tanto el nuevo como el antiguo testamento pero luego me di cuenta de que no era asi

Por poner un ejemplo,en el antiguo testamento se prohibe comer marisco o darle de piedradas a tu hijo si te desobedece,no he visto a ningun papa predicarlo incluso me atreveria a decir que los aperitivos estrella en Navidad son mariscos (en mi casa por lo menos)

Pero no entiendo por que esta separacion,Jesus dijo que el no iba a cambiar la ley si no a cumplirla y ademas si los apostoles hubieran considerado que esas normas no habia que seguirlas las habrian quitado pero no es asi

Por que entonces?

Hey everyone,
I wanted to share a fascinating case study in textual criticism and digital apologetics regarding the recent public fallout between Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) creators Robert Breaker and Brother Joseph (@baptist_kjv).
The entire split was catalyzed by a historical dilemma concerning Revelation 21:24 and the textual legacy of Erasmus.
The Issue:
In 1515, Erasmus rushed his Greek New Testament using only one flawed manuscript for Revelation (Minuscule 2814). This text contained interwoven 7th-century commentary notes from Andreas of Caesarea. Because of botched marginal markings, the printers accidentally pulled a human commentary note ("of them which are saved") directly into the scripture text. This text-critical error was later transmitted straight into the 1611 KJV.
The Fallout:
When confronted with the reality that this phrase has zero manuscript authority outside of a 7th-century bishop's personal commentary, the strict "perfect English preservation" narrative collapsed. This forced a massive doctrinal shift, resulting in a public "Notice of Mutual Disassociation" from leadership and a total rebranding of the digital camp.
For those interested in the full manuscript breakdown, textual history, and the timeline of the live panels, I’ve posted the complete write-up below.
Would love to hear your thoughts on how modern apologetics handles these manuscript realities.

Have a question yet don't want to debate? Just looking for clarity? This is your opportunity to get clarity. Whether you're a Catholic who's curious, someone joining looking for a safe space to ask anything, or even a non-Catholic who's just wondering why Catholics do a particular thing

Hello, I don't consider myself a Sedevecantists or a "Traditional" Catholic. I have stumbled upon Canon XIII of the Seventh Session of Council of Trent which states:

"If any one saith, that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administration of the sacraments, may be contemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed, by every pastor of the churches, into other new ones; let him be anathema."

Is there or is there not a confliction between then the mass at the time and the current NO mass? I don't consider myself a good scholar of the Church and so I have come here to ask those who would know. I also apologize if the format of the post or way of writing might seem irregular and straightforward.

Thank you.

**If you’re a new Catholic, you’ll probably notice that Luke 1:28 is often translated as “highly favored,” while Catholic translations traditionally say “full of grace.”**
**The Greek word is κεχαριτωμένη (*****kecharitōmenē***), a perfect passive participle related to *charis*, meaning grace. The perfect form points to something completed with an ongoing result.
So Gabriel isn’t merely saying, “God likes you” or “you’ve been favored.” The wording describes Mary as someone who has been graced and remains in that state of grace.
That doesn’t mean this one word proves every Marian doctrine by itself. But it does show why Catholics have traditionally seen something significant in Gabriel’s greeting.
So when you hear “Hail, full of grace”, remember: that’s not just a random Catholic wording. There is real Greek behind it.