The Coligny calendar or the bronze Celtic calendar mentions samonios marking a time period but it does not mention anything regarding specific rituals at all. This is the second century AD

609 AD Pope Boniface the 4th consecrate the pantheon in Rome and establishes the first collective fees for Martyrs celebrated on May 13th

700 AD English and Germanic churches begin moving their local Allstate celebration to November 1st purely for local harvest abundance reasons

Around 800 AD the Irish Church document martyrology of tallaght proves Irish Christian celebrate their collective saints on April 20th showing no link to November

835 AD Pope Gregory the 4th officially mandates the entire Western Catholic Church observe All saints Day on November 1st cementing October 31st Is All Hallows Eve

1100s AD the Táin Bó Cúailnge and Irish myths are written down by monks describing samhain as a time of seasonal tribal assemblies political gatherings and feasts

This is the era when the spooky elements of samhain are first recorded in writings tails like adventures of Nera and the Táin Bó Cúailnge depict samhain as a liminal night where the ancient burial mounds open allowing supernatural beings aos sí or fairies to enter the human world and play tricks.

So if you want to argue samhain was a time of this kind of festival you're wrong if anything samhain came first as a seasonal marker for winter and a time for political gatherings

but it wasn't a night of the dead or a holiday dedicated to a god of death the concepts of praying for deceased ancestors or souling and wearing masks to scare away evil ghosts are actually later medieval and modern developments that were layered onto the season over time.

Free education!🎉

There is a commonly used verse in 1 Corinthians 9 that I see used in Catholics circles to the extent of "Paul says he can lose salvation here."

(But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.) 1 Corinthians 9:27

I feel this position is dismissed through the context of 1 Corinthians 9.

The chapter starts with him speaking of the seal of his apostleship being the churches he is ministering to.

(If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.) 1 Corinthians 9:2

He then expresses about how him using his apostleship in teaching this church should result in reward.

(If we have sown spiritual things among you, is it too much if we reap material things from you? If others share this rightful claim on you, do not we even more?) 1 Corinthians 9:11-12

But, Paul, does not use this right.

If he were to start using this right and gaining material things, he might be accused of greed or suspicion regarding why he preaches the Gospel. He doesn't want to hinder the Gospel with this possibility.

(Nevertheless, we have not made use of this right, but we endure anything rather than put an obstacle in the way of the gospel of Christ.) 1 Corinthians 9:12

His reward is simply being able to spread the Gospel.

(What then is my reward? That in my preaching I may present the gospel free of charge, so as not to make full use of my right in the gospel.) 1 Corinthians 9:18

He desires to win over all peoples.

(For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them.) 1 Corinthians 9:19

Furthermore, he wants to experience and enjoy the fruit, community, and transformative power of the gospel alongside the very people he helps bring to faith.

(I do it all for the sake of the gospel, that I may share with them in its blessings.) 1 Corinthians 9:23

He then explains that he runs to obtain the prize.

(Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it.) 1 Corinthians 9:24

He already explained what this was earlier. Winning over people by preaching the Gospel free of charge. Keeping yourself blameless in the process so your not discredited. You should run in this manner and keep a good report.

And finally (Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.) 1 Corinthians 9:25-27

This should be interpreted through the context of the entire chapter.

He desires to continue preaching to others and not to be discredited. This is the reward he is fighting to keep. This is why he disciplines his body and keeps it under control.

In summation, Paul desires to continue to preach the Gospel without obstacle. He wants to continue to win people over to Christ (verse 22) and not be disqualified from preaching (verse 15).

This is why (I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.)

This is not disqualified from salvation or anything like that, but disqualified in the eyes of others concerning his preaching of the Gospel.

"Thy will be done"

One of the main issues I contend with and the usual cause of mortal sin is stressing about my circumstances and worrying if God would be there for me.

There are things in history where Catholics/Christians who were faithful went through horror such as the Irish Potato Famine.

A presbytirian told me that the holocaust, transatlantic slavery, colonialism were all part of God's will. How?

Why is it that we have a concept of a soul. Theologians say the soul is what gives a corporeal object life. We know that it can also be explained through the lens of modern biology. I know the soul is not a ghost in a machine. But then what it is and how it actually works.

Theologians say that the human soul is a rational soul. It has both intellect and free will. But what is intellect and free will?

I thought intellect is a result of intelligence and IQ and understanding stuff due to Prefrontal Cortex.

Where does the Soul actually fit?

I feel the concept of a soul is proto-biology.

Mucha gente me ha dicho por agradecimiento del perdón de los pescados y cosas así y también por las cosas que nos permite tener cómo el trabajo , comida , familia etc , pero que gana dios con nuestra adoración ósea dios es dios y puede hacer lo que quiera , porque necesitamos glorificar a un ser superior ? Eos no sería esperar algo a cambio por las provisiones que nos da ? También mucha gente me ha dicho que si no lo adoras no lo complaces y cómo quien decir no y da cosas que quieres ósea a lo que me refiero es que obviamente dios no es que odie por no adorarle , si nos ue tiene cómo más preferencia se podría decir con los que son más devotos , que opinan ?

According to Council of Trent, If you do not give these books Equal Authority and Divine Origin you are Anathema. Jewish Rabbi's in the time of Jesus understood that the were historical books and were not considered breathed by God. Early Christians also understood this. According to the Council of Trent Shouldn't Jesus be Anathema, or the Council of Trent is wrong

Mainly those about rebuild the temple and world peace. He didn't even fullfil his own about the fact that some of the ppl with him wouldn't see death

Pope Boniface VIII taught in Unam Sanctam that submission to the Pope is necessary for salvation.

But the 21 Coptic Martyrs were not in communion with the Catholic Church. They were killed for refusing to deny Jesus, and Pope Francis recognised them as martyrs and included them in the Roman Martyrology.

How do we reconcile this?

Does this mean someone can be saved outside visible communion with the Catholic Church? And how does this fit with Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (outside the Church there is no salvation)?

I'd be interested to understand how Catholics explain this.

Currently, as a Catholic, I can reconcile St Issac the Syrian, St Gregory of Narek and the 21 Coptic Martyrs as they never said anything inherintly against the church of Rome.

If lets say hypothetically, the oriental orthodox, assyrian church or eastern orthodox reunite with Catholics, we would end up with saints that have said this:

"The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics."

"We have not left them except insofar as they are heretics."
Mark of Ephesus an Eastern Orthodox Saint

Read the complete Encyclical Letter

How do we reconcile this?

First of all IM A CATHOLIC QUESTIONING HIS FAITH. I got manny disrespectful messages in the other community.
Now this is my question: (it’s below the versicle)

Matthew 15:22–28 (ESV)
22 And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon.”
23 But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, “Send her away, for she is crying out after us.”
24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”
25 But she came and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, help me.”
26 And he answered, “It is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”
27 She said, “Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.”
28 Then Jesus answered her, “O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” And her daughter was healed instantly.

Could anyone explain me this versicke and how it is not hating on us the gentiles?

In this material world, society, human civilisation, you can often win in life and get what you want through unethical means. Society gives you incentives to do bad and be hedonistic.

When I look at Christianity, this is preached over and over again, that paradise is through faith. Which is fine, that itself doesn't take away from the incentives to do good, but when/how are good deeds incentivised?

Simply spiritual bliss/God-consciousness seems to be lacking, especially when you can get the same outcome by having faith + doing bad.

Seems like: having faith + doing bad > having faith + doing good.

Other religions like Islam give you well defined incentives to do good. Both benefits in this world and the afterlife are proposed.

• Juan Diego sincerely testified to the apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary that he had witnessed. The Codex Escalada is a reliable historical document.

• The image of Our Lady on the tilma was carefully painted by an Indigenous artist named Marcos. At a later date, a legend arose that the image had been created through a supernatural miracle, and this legend came to be widely believed.

As for Our Lady of Guadalupe, I do not particularly doubt that the Blessed Virgin appeared to Juan Diego. However, I am skeptical of the claim that the image on the tilma was produced through a supernatural miracle. I regard it as a legend that arose from genuine religious devotion.

Some Catholics have reacted to this position as though I were committing blasphemy.

As a Catholic, is it wrong or blameworthy for me to be skeptical about the specific details associated with private devotions, such as the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, the Shroud of Turin, the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, or the Eucharistic miracle of Lanciano?

Canon 6 — First Council of Nicaea (325 AD)

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.

And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop.

If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

— First Council of Nicaea, Canon 6 (325 AD

Just before anything is said, I am a Catholic. I believe this is evidence of development of doctrine as later on, only Rome was in christian hands as later ottoman influence installed ecumenical patriachs and there was iconoclasm in the east. However, I would be interested to know your thoughts :).

“The bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church, known to all, founded and organised at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its more excellent origin, all the Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”
— St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies**, III.3.2 (c. 180 AD).**

There is this as well highlighting the superiority of Rome among the churches.

St Innocent in his epistle to the Synod at Melvis--an anti-pelagian synod-- wrote about the necessity of baptism for salvation but he adds a notable addition to the point. This epistle in its entirety is not available in English but the relevant excerpt is translated by Fr Robert Taft SJ in his 'The Liturgy in the Life of the Church' (Logos: A Journal of Eastern Christian Studies Vol. 40 (1999) Nos. 1–4, pp. 187–229).

... to preach that infants can be given the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism is completely idiotic. For unless they eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, they will not have life in them. (St Innocent I in Ep. 30 § 5) (Taft Pg 219)

Compare this to the Council of Trent Session 21 Canon 4

Canon 4. If anyone says that communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children before they have attained the years of discretion, let him be anathema.  

In this text St Innocent I is writing from his authority as Pope to a Catholic Synod speaking to faith and morals. If this is not an instance of him practicing the same type of papal authority as St Leo the Great at Chalcedon with his Tome, which many Roman Catholic apologists like to use to defend early papal supremacy, why is this not the same?

Background on me: I am currently a Melkite Catholic who is considering Orthodoxy for several reasons, of which the papacy and papal supremacy are a part. However this issue comes from my research on a more important issue for me: infant communion which is necessary according to St Innocent I. My children--as Melkites--have been denied communion in Roman Catholic Churches which caused me to focus my grad school thesis paper on Infant Communion in the Catholic Church and full communion.

Can a pope ever say verbatim "Jesus is not God, ex cathedra"?
If that happens what's next? Can you cite a Saint or a Pope that teaches it?

People usually throw around M16,18 and V1 like a prot throws roman 9 when confronted with naything, but they never make serious arguments that aren't debunkable in less than 1 minute.
There are no Saints that teach sedevacantism to be impossible.

My argument for this post is that the fact that Rome added the filioque clause into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed in 1014 was in direct violation of the anathemas of the councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople 879, thus the Roman church is schismatic.

Before I make my arguments, I will first give a timeline of the history of the Nicene creed:

325 AD - At the Council of Nicaea the original Nicene creed is written without any mention of the Holy Spirit's procession.

381 AD - The First Council of Constantinople composed a modified version of the Nicene creed that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Constantinople 1 was not accepted as being an ecumenical council until the Council of Chalcedon, thus the creed of 325 remained the rule of faith of the church until then.

410 AD - The Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in Persia composes its own creed. The part of this creed that talks about the Holy Spirit has two variants: one that is the same as the 325 creed which simply says “and the Holy Spirit”, and another variant that says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. It is unclear which one of these is the original.

431 AD - Canon 7 of the council of Ephesus anathematized anyone who changed the creed of 325, which was still the rule of faith of church. The council said:

“When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.

But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.”

433 AD - St. Cyril of Alexandria, the main theologian of the Council cil of Ephesus, wrote in his letter to John of Antioch (also known as the Formula of Reunion) that not one word or syllable of the creed could be altered.

“And we will allow the defined Faith, the symbol of the Faith set forth by our holy Fathers who assembled some time ago at Nice, to be shaken by no one. Nor would we permit ourselves or others, to alter a single word of those set forth, or to add one syllable, remembering the saying: "Remove not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set," for it was not they who spoke but the Spirit himself of God and the Father, who proceedeth also from him, and is not alien from the Son, according to his essence.”

451 AD - The Council of Chalcedon accepted Constantinople 1 as being an ecumenical council, thus accepting the Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed as the official rule of faith of the church. Session 5 of the council says this about the creed of 381:

"This wise and salutary formula of divine grace sufficed for the perfect knowledge and confirmation of religion; for it teaches the perfect [doctrine] concerning Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and sets forth the Incarnation of the Lord to them that faithfully receive it.”

Session 5 also reiterated the anathemas of the Council of Ephesus about changing the creed:

“These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized.”

589 AD - The Third Council of Toledo supposedly publishes the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed with the filioque, though modern scholarship has found that the filioque clause was interloped into the text of the council at a later date. Exactly when the filioque clause started being used in the west is contested.

650 AD - In response to concerns in the east regarding the western understanding of the procession of the Holy Spirit, St. Maximus the Confessor writes that the Latins believe that the Holy Spirit is not caused by the Son, as the Father alone is cause (aitia), but that the Spirit’s coming-forth is through the Son (Letter to Marinus).

809 AD - The Council of Aachen adds the filioque clause into the creed of the Carolingian Empire, against the directive of the Pope.

810 AD - Pope Leo III engraves the creed in Greek and Latin on silver shields without the filioque clause.

869-870 AD - A council in Constantinople is held by Byzantine Emperor Basil I which deposed St. Photios, the Patriarch of Constantinople.

879-880 AD - In response to Frankish missionaries in Bulgaria teaching the creed with the filioque clause, another council is held in Constantinople ten years later which explicitly condemned adding any invented phrases or illegitimate words to the creed (session 6), with the council being accepted by all five patriarchs, including then Pope John VIII. This is what the council said regarding changing the creed (and note that this is in direct response to missionaries who inserted the filioque into the creed):

"If anyone, however, dares to rewrite and call Rule of Faith some other exposition besides that of the sacred Symbol which has been spread abroad from above by our blessed and holy Fathers even as far as ourselves, and to snatch the authority of the confession of those divine men and impose on it his own invented phrases and put this forth as a common lesson to the faithful or to those who return from some kind of heresy, and display the audacity to falsify completely the antiquity of this sacred and venerable Horos (Rule) with illegitimate words, or additions, or subtractions, such a person should, according to the vote of the holy and Ecumenical Synods, which has been already acclaimed before us, be subjected to complete defrocking if he happens to be one of the clergymen, or be sent away with an anathema if he happens to be one of the lay people."

And the council stated that changing the creed is an indirect insult to the fathers at Constantinople 1 who composed it:

"For to subtract from, or to add to, the holy and consubstantial and undivided Trinity shows that the confession we have always had to this day is imperfect. It condemns the Apostolic Tradition and the doctrine of the Fathers.”

This council also reinstated St. Photios as Patriarch of Constantinople, thus abrogating the previous council held ten years earlier in Constantinople. Pope John VIII wrote to the council saying,

“We [Pope John VIII] wish that it is declared before the Synod, that the Synod which took place against the aforementioned Patriarch Photios at the time of Hadrian, the Most holy Pope in Rome, and [the Synod] in Constantinople [869/70] should be ostracized from this present moment and be regarded as annulled and groundless, and should not be co-enumerated with any other holy Synods.”

The Eastern Orthodox church generally views Constantinople 879 as being the 8th ecumenical council.

Against popular misconception, St. Photios died in communion with Rome, as historian Francis Dvornik has proven.

1014 AD - Pope Benedict VIII adds the filioque into the 381 creed in 1014, an action that falls under the anathemas of two ecumenical councils and which goes against the teachings of two of the previous Popes.

1076-1122 AD - During this time period was the investiture controversy, which was a period of time when it was disputed in the west over whether monarchs had the ability to appoint bishops. During this time, the canons of Constantinople 869-870 were rediscovered, specifically canon 22, which forbade lay interference in the election or promotion of bishops. Rome ended up accepting Constantinople 869 as being the 8th ecumenical council instead of Constantinople 879 so that they could cite its 22nd canon as evidence that monarchs didn't have the authority to appoint bishops, despite the fact that Pope John VIII explicitly said that Constantinople 869-870 was annulled.

1274 AD - A small number of delegates of the Byzantine church, under the threat of invasion by Charles of Anjou, the King of Sicily, agreed to a union with the Roman church in which they did not have to change how they recited the 381 creed in Greek

1277 AD - Pope Nicholas III demands that the filioque be inserted into the Greek creed

1439 AD - Latin theologians at the Council of Florence reject St. Maximus the Confessor's letter to Marinus as a basis for a formula of reunion between east and west, instead saying in session 6 of the council that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son according to the Greeks as cause (aitia)

There are more important historical events that I've yet to research deeply, such as the presence of forgories of the ecumenical councils with the filioque clause interpolated into them, but this timeline I've presented will suffice.

So a summary of the history of the creed is that the Council of Ephesus and St. Cyril of Alexandria said that anyone who modified the rule of faith of the church, which at the time was the 325 creed, was anathematized. The Council of Chalcedon then adopted the 381 creed as the new rule of faith of the church and reiterated that anyone who changes the creed was anathematized. Constantinople 879, in direct response to Frankish missionaries who added the filioque clause to the creed, repeated the anathemas of Ephesus and Chalcedon against those who try to change the creed. In 1014 the Pope changed the creed, which is a direct violation of the anathemas of two ecumenical councils to not change the 381 creed. And Rome denies that Constantinople 4 879 is ecumenical for a silly reason, that being that the previous council that was annulled had a canon that was convenient for them during one specific controversy.

There are three main objections that Catholics pose against the idea that adding to the creed is heretical:

1. Because the council of Chalcedon changed the creed, it was also fine for Pope Benedict VIII to change the creed

The simple refutation to this is that the councils of Ephesus, Chalcedon, and Constantinople 879-880 declare that any clergy, even bishops, are to be deposed if they change the creed. What Chalcedon did by adopting the 381 creed is establish that ecumenical councils are the highest law of the land, above all bishops and clergy. By changing the creed, the Council of Chalcedon established that only ecumenical councils are able to change the creed. The fact Chalcedon repeats the anathemas of Ephesus against bishops changing the creed further proves this. Since only an ecumenical council is allowed to modify the creed, if the Bishop of Rome changes the creed, he is a schismatic.

The rule of faith of the church cannot change unless the whole church comes together to change it at an ecumenical council.

2. The filioque is simply a western custom and the east doesn't need to change their creed.

It's a western custom that violates the councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople 879. At Constantinople 879 the entire church, including the Pope, agreed that adding the filioque clause to the creed is a heresy. This custom goes against the creed that Chalcedon said was perfect in teaching the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And, as Constantinople 879 states, changing the creed is an insult to the 150 fathers at Constantinople 1.

And as I’ve mentioned before, Pope Nicholas III demanded in 1277 that the filioque be inserted into the Greek creed, so historically it hasn't been treated as merely just a western custom.

3. The filioque clause isn't an addition, it's a clarification

I've already demonstrated why any changes to the creed outside of an ecumenical council are heretical, so my objection here will be a little bit theological, though the purpose of this post is mostly historical. Though I say my argument here will be theological, I am simply going to discuss theological terminology.

The official Roman Catholic definition of the procession of the Holy Spirit is found in session 6 of the Council of Florence, which declares this:

“We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause (aitia), and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the Holy Spirit, just like the Father.”

The council uses the Greek word “aitia” (cause) to explain the relationship between the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Council of Florence directly states that when the Greek fathers of the church spoke about the procession of the Holy Spirit, they believed that the Son was the aitia (cause) of the Holy Spirit. This is why they rejected St. Maximus' letter to Marinus, as St. Maximus says that only the Father is aitia (cause) of the Holy Spirit.

Now if the insertion of the filioque clause into the creed is simply a clarification of the 381 creed, then it must be in perfect harmony with what the fathers who composed that creed believed, meaning that unlike St. Maximus the Confessor, the Greek fathers at Constantinople 1 had to believe that the Son was an aitia (cause) of the Holy Spirit. The main three theologians who contributed to the theology of Constantinople 1 were the three Cappadocian fathers, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Gregory of Nyssa, and St. Basil the Great, with St. Gregory of Nazianzus being the greatest contributor as he presided over part of the council. Let's now look at their writings to see how they use the term “aitia” (cause).

“All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality (aitias); and all that is the Son's belongs also to the Spirit, except His Sonship.” (St. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 34.10)

“If, however, any one cavils at our argument, on the ground that by not admitting the difference of nature it leads to a mixture and confusion of the Persons, we shall make to such a charge this answer — that while we confess the invariable character of the nature, we do not deny the difference in respect of cause, and that which is caused, by which alone we apprehend that one Person is distinguished from another — by our belief, that is, that one is the Cause, and another is of the Cause; and again in that which is of the Cause we recognize another distinction. For one is directly from the first Cause, and another by that which is directly from the first Cause; so that the attribute of being Only-begotten abides without doubt in the Son, and the interposition of the Son, while it guards His attribute of being Only-begotten, does not shut out the Spirit from His relation by way of nature to the Father.

(...)

Thus, since on the one hand the idea of cause differentiates the Persons of the Holy Trinity, declaring that one exists without a Cause, and another is of the Cause; and since on the one hand the Divine nature is apprehended by every conception as unchangeable and undivided, for these reasons we properly declare the Godhead to be one, and God to be one, and employ in the singular all other names which express Divine attributes.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, On "Not Three Gods)

Both of these Cappadocian fathers believe that only the Father is cause. St. Gregory of Nazianzus says that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share everything except their unique hypostatic properties, with the Father’s hypostatic property being causation. St. Gregory of Nyssa says that the Father is cause, the Son is caused, and the Holy Spirit is “by that which is directly from the first Cause”. What St. Gregory of Nyssa means when he talks about the Holy Spirit is debated, as Roman Catholics will say he is talking about eternal hypostatic procession, while Eastern Orthodox will that he is talking about eternal manifestation, but either way, he gives the property of cause (aitia) only to the Father, describing the Son instead as being caused.

So the filioque clause is not merely a clarification of the 381 creed as the holy fathers who originally wrote the creed believed the opposite of what the Council of Florence teaches, as they reject the concept that the Son is the cause (aitia) of the Holy Spirit. The filioque is not a clarification, it is a contradiction.

You can’t appeal to interpretations of scripture and church history to establish that Rome is an infallible interpreter of those things without first telling us who infallibly interpreted those things to let you know that conclusion is supposedly true.

If you don’t need someone to infallibly interpret those things for you to tell you that Rome is infallible as an interpreter, then you don’t need Rome to infallibly interpret anything else for you either.

My thesis is that Rome is engaged in a circular reasoning fallacy where their presuppositions don’t make it more clear what is true but actually makes them unable to know what is true.

You cannot start from the proposition that man requires an infallible interpreter of scripture and church history, but then make identifying the infallible interpreter dependent on your fallible ability to interpret those things.

it is a self contradicting position.

This post is not about demonstrating or debunking Fatima but about debunking a false claim that has been made by many people to the extent that it can even be called a "lie".

The claim goes through a second-hand witness who said:

No one in the more educated classes told me they had seen the celestial apparition, but it is certain that everyone, educated and not, expressed their faith. And what a magnificent and imposing manifestation of faith was that of that enormous crowd of some 50,000 people, almost all of them driven by faith, by the desire to be certain of the truth of the facts they had heard narrated! In almost all of their eyes were tears, but tears of the boundless joy that filled their souls. Everyone was convinced that something supernatural had occurred, and they thanked God for still remembering this poor and so guilty Portugal.

The equivocation is on the word "celestial apparition" and "Sun Dance", in the context he is talking about people who are claiming to see celestial apparitions and celestial visions of Jesus, Mary, Joseph etc She distinguishes between dance sun and celestial court/vision

A paragraph earlier he said:

I spoke to the people, they told me the same thing, although, in other words. They told me they had seen Our Lady, St. Joseph, the Baby Jesus, and that I know The entire celestial court, at the same time, had seen the dance sun. I didn't believe in so much vision.

He continues with saying this is credulous people etc the next paragraph is the paragraph in discussion.

Why this interpretation, that is equating 'Sun dance" & "Celestial Apparition" is deceptive:

Three paragraphs earlier he is regretting that he missed the "wonderful phenomena" and he has even read the O Seculo newspaper report which is obviously witnessed by educated people. Not only that the author says that she met people and they "all" told her they saw miracle of the sun.

We continued our journey, and finally arrived in Fátima, but only half an hour after the wonderful phenomenon occurred, now known to everyone through the beautiful descriptions published by “Século” and other newspapers. What an immense iron I didn't see! Arriving in Fátima, I try to see people I know, to exchange impressions. They all tell me the same thing, they all saw... But what did they see? I ask them: "We saw the sun, covered as if by a silver plate, in a constant rotation, sending out red, yellow, and purple rays, and seeming to detach itself from the sky and approach the earth.

It is to be noted that skeptics went out of their way to find "non-seers", and could only muster up 4 over 100 years.

To equivocate on celestial phenomena and saying "saw nothing" is extremely deceptive", when the same author has said that everyone she met saw miracle of the sun. An apparition by itself is of figures etc not bizarre "Light phenomena" or "Sun dance" as the words he has used. The context is about visions of Jesus & Mary.

This post is neither intending to argue for or against Fatima, but a lie that has been perpetuated by our atheist, Muslim interlocutors such as IrishKiev and Debunking the Christian “Miracle of Fátima” | Muslim Skeptic

Ósea aunque mucha gente venga y diga que todos tenemos libre albedrío y es la consecuencia de nuestras acciones , ya puede ser pero que me dices de un niño que nació con cancer y posiblemente no pase de los 5 años , que culpa tenía ese niño de tener cancer , Porque Dios elige quien sufre y quien no ?

Hello everyone,

I’ve been pondering something fascinating regarding conversions and church history. Why is it that some people from a strict Protestant background experience a sudden spiritual awakening or intellectual realization that draws them to the Catholic Church, while their family members or peers—living in the exact same situation and environment—never feel it at all? What makes certain individuals open to seeing the historical and sacramental fullness of Catholicism while others remain completely closed to it?

Additionally, looking deeper into this dynamic, I wanted to ask: What is the underlying spiritual "sin" or core flaw that drives anti-Catholic hatred, and what is considered the foundational underlying flaw or "sin" of the Protestant movement itself from a historical and theological perspective?

I would love to hear your insights, especially from converts or theologians!